HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Transcripts show #DarrenW...

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 08:43 AM

Transcripts show #DarrenWilson lied to the grand jury

Transcripts show #DarrenWilson lied to the grand jury
By: Masoninblue Wednesday November 26, 2014 4:55 am

Officer Darren Wilson testified that he knew about the theft of a box of cigarillos from the Ferguson Market, before encountering Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson. However, Officer Wilson’s supervisor testified that he spoke to Wilson after the shooting, and that Wilson “did not know anything about the stealing call.” In an apparent effort to turn unreasonable actions into a reasonable excuse to pull the gun out, Wilson connected the stop to the call about the in-store theft.

First we have a transcript of his grand jury testimony:

Question by Prosecutor Ms. Whirley:

Q: Okay. Did you get any other calls between the time of the sick baby call and your interaction with Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson?
A: While on the sick case call, a call came out for a stealing in progress from the local market on West Florissant, that the suspects traveling toward QT. I didn’t hear the entire call, I was on my portable radio, which isn’t exactly the best. I did hear that a suspect was wearing a black shirt and that a box of Cigarillos was stolen.
Q: And this was your call or you just heard the call?
A: It was not my call. I heard the call.
Q: Some other officers were dispatched to that call.
A: I believe two others were.
Q: Was it a call you were going to go toalso?
A: No.
Q: So you weren’t really geared to handle that call?
A: No.

/snip/

A: As I approached them, I stopped a couple of feet in front of Johnson as they are walking toward me, I am going toward them. As Johnson came along my driver’s side mirror I said, “why don’t you guys walk on the sidewalk?” He kept walking, as he is walking, he said, “we are almost to our destination.”
Q: Do you think he used those words destination, we are almost to our destination?
A: Yes, ma’am. He said we are almost to our destination and he pointed this direction over my vehicle. So like in a northeasternly (sic) direction. As he did that, he kept walking and Brown was starting to come around the mirror 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 very unusual and not expected response from a simple request.
When I start looking at Brown, first thing I notice is in his right hand, his hand is full of Cigarillos. I looked in my mirror, I did a double check that 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 to keep them somewhat contained.

[GJ, Vol. V pp. 202-209]


Second, now we have a transcript of his direct supervisor’s testimony. Sergeant LNU* responded to the scene within minutes after the shooting and was the first person to interview him.

Question by a Prosecutor Ms. Alizadeh

Q: Did he know about it? Did he talk about knowing about the stealing?
A: He did not know anything about the stealing call.
Q: He told you he did not know anything about the stealing?
A: He did not know anything. He was out on another call in the apartment complex adjacent to Canfield Green.
[GJ, Vol. V, pp. 52-53]

Question by a GJ member

Q: Now, my question to you is this. Are you saying that because he told you he didn’t know about it or are you saying that because he didn’t mention It to you when you were talking to him?
A: He did not mention it to me again. I learned about it at a later time.
Q: Has he ever told you, yeah, I didn’t know anything about what happened up at the Ferguson Market?
A: Yes, he told me that in subsequent conversations.
Q: He told you he didn’t know about there being a stealing at the Ferguson Market?
A: Correct


[GJ, Vol. V, p. 58]


The shooting happened on Saturday, August 9, 2014. Wilson was not questioned by anyone else until after he conferred with his lawyer at the station house. Both witnesses testified before the grand jury on September 16, 2014, which was 5 weeks after the shooting.

My question is, how can anyone believe Officer Darren Wilson regarding any material issue of fact when he lied about the reason he stopped the boys to portray them as criminal thieves?



MORE:
http://my.firedoglake.com/blog/2014/11/26/over-easy-transcripts-show-darrenwilson-lied-to-the-grand-jury/

127 replies, 15146 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 127 replies Author Time Post
Reply Transcripts show #DarrenWilson lied to the grand jury (Original post)
kpete Nov 2014 OP
noiretextatique Nov 2014 #1
FBaggins Nov 2014 #4
noiretextatique Nov 2014 #6
FBaggins Nov 2014 #10
noiretextatique Nov 2014 #17
KingCharlemagne Nov 2014 #31
FBaggins Nov 2014 #34
KingCharlemagne Nov 2014 #40
FBaggins Nov 2014 #46
KingCharlemagne Nov 2014 #50
Rex Nov 2014 #54
FBaggins Nov 2014 #56
KingCharlemagne Nov 2014 #64
FBaggins Nov 2014 #94
Rex Nov 2014 #65
FBaggins Nov 2014 #75
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2014 #42
FBaggins Nov 2014 #47
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2014 #53
FBaggins Nov 2014 #61
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2014 #85
FBaggins Nov 2014 #90
WinkyDink Nov 2014 #63
FBaggins Nov 2014 #70
WinkyDink Nov 2014 #74
FBaggins Nov 2014 #78
FarPoint Nov 2014 #7
starroute Nov 2014 #35
deist99 Nov 2014 #91
starroute Nov 2014 #101
TexasMommaWithAHat Nov 2014 #102
Alittleliberal Nov 2014 #111
R B Garr Nov 2014 #115
crazylikafox Nov 2014 #2
Lex Nov 2014 #3
Thor_MN Nov 2014 #18
branford Nov 2014 #27
FarPoint Nov 2014 #5
Lee-Lee Nov 2014 #8
Elmergantry Nov 2014 #9
FBaggins Nov 2014 #11
Elmergantry Nov 2014 #12
rgbecker Nov 2014 #13
FBaggins Nov 2014 #15
rgbecker Nov 2014 #21
FBaggins Nov 2014 #29
Name removed Nov 2014 #45
rgbecker Nov 2014 #48
Rex Nov 2014 #55
FBaggins Nov 2014 #58
Rex Nov 2014 #62
FBaggins Nov 2014 #81
BklnDem75 Nov 2014 #19
rgbecker Nov 2014 #24
BklnDem75 Nov 2014 #32
IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #123
lonestarnot Nov 2014 #14
turbinetree Nov 2014 #16
KeepItReal Nov 2014 #22
turbinetree Nov 2014 #38
GGJohn Nov 2014 #43
gcomeau Nov 2014 #105
GGJohn Nov 2014 #107
Cosmocat Nov 2014 #20
Dark n Stormy Knight Nov 2014 #103
GoneFishin Nov 2014 #23
Johonny Nov 2014 #25
GoneFishin Nov 2014 #124
rgbecker Nov 2014 #26
GoneFishin Nov 2014 #125
rgbecker Nov 2014 #28
Elmergantry Nov 2014 #39
rgbecker Nov 2014 #49
truth2power Nov 2014 #30
KingCharlemagne Nov 2014 #37
Central Scruitinizer Nov 2014 #51
Rex Nov 2014 #60
truth2power Nov 2014 #82
deist99 Nov 2014 #98
busterbrown Nov 2014 #104
deist99 Nov 2014 #113
busterbrown Nov 2014 #116
Locrian Nov 2014 #120
truth2power Nov 2014 #109
Alittleliberal Nov 2014 #126
deist99 Nov 2014 #112
Fumesucker Nov 2014 #118
Central Scruitinizer Dec 2014 #127
libodem Nov 2014 #33
WinkyDink Nov 2014 #67
libodem Nov 2014 #92
Moosepoop Nov 2014 #108
IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #36
Rex Nov 2014 #57
vkkv Nov 2014 #84
IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #87
deist99 Nov 2014 #99
IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #100
backwoodsbob Nov 2014 #121
IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #122
dpibel Nov 2014 #114
deist99 Nov 2014 #119
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2014 #41
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2014 #44
WinkyDink Nov 2014 #69
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2014 #88
vkkv Nov 2014 #52
FBaggins Nov 2014 #66
vkkv Nov 2014 #79
IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #80
FBaggins Nov 2014 #93
IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #97
vkkv Nov 2014 #86
vkkv Nov 2014 #89
Rex Nov 2014 #59
WinkyDink Nov 2014 #68
Rex Nov 2014 #71
WinkyDink Nov 2014 #72
Rex Nov 2014 #73
WinkyDink Nov 2014 #76
sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #77
ncjustice80 Nov 2014 #83
bobthedrummer Nov 2014 #95
vkkv Nov 2014 #96
BootinUp Nov 2014 #106
Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2014 #110
LineReply ,
blkmusclmachine Nov 2014 #117

Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 08:45 AM

1. good question for the folks who keep

Claiming he knew about the store...even though he did not. Wanna bet this will have ZERO impact on them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noiretextatique (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 09:09 AM

4. A good answer would be that hearsay doesn't trump actual evidence

The dispatch transcripts make clear that he did know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 09:13 AM

6. not according to this post

But perhaps I am missing something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noiretextatique (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 09:33 AM

10. Yes, that's what the post says. The post is wrong.

Witness testimony very frequently conflicts with reality. Just read through the transcripts and no two of them tell exactly the same story (and not just because of bias). In fact, many conflict directly. That's entirely natural... and it's why hearsay evidence is usually inadmissible.

Yes, if given only the statements of an officer suspected of a crime and his supervisor, we would assume that the officer has more reason to lie and thus we would give more weight to the supervisor's statements re: what he knew at the time (though it wouldn't be proof if that's all we had). However, in this case we also have the recordings of the actual dispatch calls.

So perhaps the supervisor was mistaken... or misheard/misremembered what he was told... or the officer misunderstood and was answering about something else. The specifics of the error are moot, because we know that someone made an error. The transcripts make clear that he was part of the radio conversation where the robbery was reported and was offering to help the two officers who were involved in the search for the suspects.

None of which changes whether he used excessive force (he clearly did - at the very least starting with the point where Brown was running away) or was justified in shooting at all (I don't know).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 10:09 AM

17. OK...I will check that out. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 10:58 AM

31. With all due respect, you are mis-stating the contents of the transcript. Wilson does not

 

in the transcript acknowledge that he has heard the report of the theft. What Wilson ('Frank 21') does is to ask whether the officers 'need him' (at track 366). That's it as far as anything implying Wilson had the slightest awareness of what is going on with the alleged 'theft' from the market.

You are inferring from Wilson's question about whether the officers need him that Wilson heard the preceding exchange and placing your inference (and Wilson's potential perjury) above the testimony of the supervisor.

I actually now think there's probable cause to indict Wilson on charges of perjury before the Grand Jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #31)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 11:07 AM

34. See my #29

How does he know that 22 & 25 need help (or even that they're working on the same thing) without having heard the prior calls? Why is heading on a direct line from his prior call to the last location the subjects were seen (the Quick Trip) if he doesn't know anything?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #34)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 11:28 AM

40. All valid questions but all based solely on your inferences and not on anything specifically

 

that Wilson said on the transcripts.

Wilson claims under oath that he heard the radio call about the 'stealing in progress.' (Let's call that 'x'.)

Wilson's supervisor claims under oath that Wilson told him he had not heard the radio call. (Let's call that 'not-x.')

The radio transcript may allow one to infer that 'x' is true but does not 'prove' it. But 'X is directly contradicted by 'Not-X'. That, my friend, equals probable cause that Wilson committed perjury. The radio transcript may be exculpatory evidence toward that claim, but that would again be a matter for a trial.

The radio transcripts themselves show Wilson asking only if officers 22 & 25 need his help. He does not 'know' that they need help, else why would he ask if it is needed. Q.E.D.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #40)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 11:43 AM

46. The problem there is that it isn't "not x"

That's why hearsay isn't permitted. The inferences from the transcript are tiny compared to relying on his memory combined with his own inferences for whatever was actually said (which may or may not have been on the specific topic to begin with). Wilson may have asked about the robery and said that he didn't have any information (because he wasn't the responding officer and didn't know the specifics)... but his supervisor took that to mean that he hadn't heard the prior calls.

Or perhaps he didn't hear the first call about the robbery, but did hear the later call with the specifics of the suspect's description and that they were still looking for him. We don't know because we have to imagine the conversatsion between officer and supervisor and judge whether the supervisor interpreted the conversation correctly and remembered it correctly.

To jump from that guessed interpretation of that imagined conversation is FAR from probable cause for perjury. It wouldn't even be admissable as evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #46)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 11:54 AM

50. To re-post the 'keeper' from the OP:

 

Q: He {Wilson} told you he didn’t know about there being a stealing at the Ferguson Market?
A: Correct


If that's not a direct flat-out contradiction (negation) of Wilson's testimony before the GJ, then there is no way to contradict or impeach Wilson's testimony on the subject before the GJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #50)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:14 PM

54. Of course it is, some posters think this is a game that they have to win.

 

Even after being proven wrong a million times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #50)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:18 PM

56. So you think he called for backup on a jaywalking stop?

Also... It's hard to skip from 366 to 368 without reading 367 as being something he was involved in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #56)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:27 PM

64. Hunh? 367 seems almost non-sensical. (Can't seem to copy and paste, so

 

here's my verbatim typewritten copy):

Track 367

OFFICER (?): Disappeared into the woodwork.

OFFICER (?): Dispatch, can you relay? I couldn't hear him.

DISPATCHER: He thinks, a, they disappeared.

OFFICER (?): Clear.


No timestamp(s), no indication of which officer(s) is\are speaking and no clear indication of wtf they are even talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #64)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 02:30 PM

94. This dispatcher listed there didn't have any trouble interpreting it

And she was pretty clear that Wilson was asking if they needed help with the robbery follow-up and they were updatig him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #56)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:28 PM

65. I believe the Chief of Police, sorry if you don't want to look at the facts.

 

Have fun pretending.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #65)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:49 PM

75. You mean that you believe this statement by the chief

You obviously don't believe the one where he said that Wilson didn't make the connection "initially" but then saw the box of cigars and associated him with the robbery (this from August - does that mean the chief perjured himself to the GJ?). No doubt you also accept his comments that Wilson was a "gentle" "quiet" "distinguished officer" who "never intended for any of this to happen".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 11:33 AM

42. Link to Dispatch Transcripts, please. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #42)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 11:44 AM

47. See #15 below

Last edited Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Also - See discussion above this on one alternate reading of the transcript by another DUer

Sorry... edited for the correct post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:08 PM

53. And, or rather, But ...

 

the job of the GJ is NOT to determine the facts, giving more weight to one set of facts over another set of facts ... That is the job for the Trial Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #53)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:26 PM

61. Actually... that's incorrect.

They are supposd to review evidence and determine the facts, but they have a much lower evidentiary bar. They need less than unanimity for their decisions and use the "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #61)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 01:11 PM

85. No ...

 

I am not incorrect. While the GJ is charged with reviewing the evidence, they are NOT charged with determining the validity of that evidence.

The GJ is to answer the question: does/can the evidence, as presented, lead one to believe a crime was committed; and if so, whether the defendant committed it.

That is the problem with (and IMO, the prosecutorial misconduct in) this case, the prosecution did not provide evidence of a crime, he merely provided testimony of the events, forcing the GJ to determine/weigh the validity of that testimony. This is particularly the case in Missouri, where the prosecutor is not required to present exculpatory evidence ... which he did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #85)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 01:27 PM

90. Your first two statements contradict each other.

You can't weigh whether or not the evidence leads you to believe that a crime was committed unless you first determine the validity of the evidence.

That is the problem with (and IMO, the prosecutorial misconduct in) this case, the prosecution did not provide evidence of a crime, he merely provided testimony of the events, forcing the GJ to determine/weigh the validity of that testimony. This is particularly the case in Missouri, where the prosecutor is not required to present exculpatory evidence ... which he did.

On that we agree. The prosecutor clearly wanted to avoid making the decision himself... so he farmed it out to the GJ so that it would appear more reasonable. Though... to be a fair... the grand jury can ask for just about anything they want to see. I'm not sure that I know which decisions were pushed by the prosecutor and which were request by the GJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:27 PM

63. A direct conversation is not "hearsay."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #63)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:35 PM

70. That's nice. This isn't a direct conversation.

The (recorded) conversation between the supervisor and the prosecutor is a direct conversation. The (unrecorded) conversation between Wilson an his supervisor would also be a direct conversation.

The supervisor telling the interviewer what Wilson said (or in this case, characterizing what he meant) is definitely hearsay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #70)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:45 PM

74. Guess again:

 

Q: Has he ever told you, yeah, I didn’t know anything about what happened up at the Ferguson Market?
A: Yes, he told me that in subsequent conversations.
Q: He told you he didn’t know about there being a stealing at the Ferguson Market?
A: Correct
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DIRECT SPEECH:
Direct Speech

Conversations which are significant should be related by the witness in direct speech. That is, the conversation should be recited as it occurred and not summarised by the witness.

The witnesses statements should still comply with the form in which the statements are made.

For example, "Brian said me, "Could you please drive? I think I have had too much to drink" is the proper way to give evidence, not "Brian asked me to drive because he had had too much to drink."

http://www.abc.net.au/mocktrial/resources/grounds.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #74)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:53 PM

78. I'm sorry... you'll have to look up the definition of hearsay.

The site you linked to has a decent description just a couple sections above what you read.

All of the variations you've given above would be hearsay.

You could not enter "Could you please drive? I think I have had too much to drink" unless Brian is there to confirm it or one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule applied.

Also... the examples you give above are characterizations of the conversation... they are not direct speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noiretextatique (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 09:14 AM

7. That's their foundation lie...him knowing about the store incident.

That was their key, pivotal connection to validate the shooting. That's why it came out so rapidly by the Ferguson PD and Company in video and shoved in our faces over and over again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noiretextatique (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 11:09 AM

35. But if he did know, why did he stop them for jaywalking?

If he knew someone wearing a black shirt had stolen a package of cigarillos and then saw someone in a black shirt with a package of cigarillos in his hand, he wouldn't have just pulled up and told them to get back on the sidewalk. He would have questioned them or made an arrest right there.

So that doesn't add up either way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to starroute (Reply #35)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 02:05 PM

91. Bigger question

Lik everyone one else here I was appalled and outraged when I first heard that a white officer had shot a black teenager who had his hands up in surrender. However, I have been reading the transcripts from the gj, and one thing that jumped out at me was from johnson's testimony. He admits that Mike stole the cigarillos and then they proceeded to walk down the middle of the street to get home. Who commits a robbery and then just walks down the middle of the street? I can see a person with that kind of chutzpah attacking an officer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deist99 (Reply #91)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 03:24 PM

101. "Admits"?? I think that word does not mean what you think it means

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to starroute (Reply #101)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 03:39 PM

102. Whatever you think "admit" means

Johnson gave convincing testimony that Brown took the cigarillos and that he (Johnson) knew there was an in-store camera, haas was afraid of getting caught and that it wasn't right, so that's why he (Johnson) put the box of cigarillos back on the counter when Brown passed them off to him.

I can't help but wonder if Wilson had some bad pot in his system or if there was something else that caused him to act the way he did. Who steals stuff and then brazenly walks down the middle of the road - on the line without a care in the world?

Surely this was not normal, routine behavior for this guy? Or did he really think he could openly steal something and not get caught? Was he just not thinking correctly for some reason? It's obvious there was something wrong with his thought processes that morning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasMommaWithAHat (Reply #102)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 08:19 PM

111. What do you mean "bad pot"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasMommaWithAHat (Reply #102)

Thu Nov 27, 2014, 12:46 AM

115. They were close to home and were crossing over the streets, not

just walking down the middle of the street aimlessly. That's perfectly understandable that a teenager close to home would be crossing over the streets he was familiar with which doesn't deserve to be characterized as someone on bad pot "brazenly" walking in the middle of the road. He was a teenager, and he was close to home. Some kids play soccer brazenly in the middle of the street. Some play baseball in the middle of the street; some ride skateboards in the street; some ride their bikes. No need to characterize him as some drugged out demon because he was crossing streets close to home. I'm a full grown woman, and I jaywalked the other day. Oh well.
This is the DU member formerly known as R B Garr.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 08:54 AM

2. So in other words, the grand jury knew he lied & didn't care.

According to that transcript, the grand jury was told they were lied to. I would love to know how many voted to not charge him. But that information is forever hidden, correct?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazylikafox (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 08:55 AM

3. the fix was in

and facts were beside the point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazylikafox (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 10:15 AM

18. The Grand Jury should have never heard from him in the first place...

 

The Grand Jury's sole purpose is to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed to a trial. There is no purpose to determine guilt or innocence, therefore defense testimony is not normally heard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 10:48 AM

27. Potential defendants are usually legally entitled to give testimony before a grand jury

 

considering charges against them. Individuals very rarely choose to testify because such testimony may be admissible in any trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 09:10 AM

5. What's worse is there is not a thing we can do but suck it up.

I don't feel empowered these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 09:15 AM

8. If you listen to the dispatch radio audio

 

You hear him ask if they need help right after that call is dispatched.

Based on the audio it appears the supervisor was incorrect, not Wilson.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 09:27 AM

9. You are correct Ma'am

 

I listened to the audio. He knew about the robbery. Either Wilson lied to the super, or the super is lieing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmergantry (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 09:34 AM

11. Neither has to be lying

(about that anyway). The supervisor could simply be mistaken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 09:45 AM

12. Thats true technically

 

What was said between the Super and Wilson will never be known, so we wont ever know if the Super was lieing or mistaken. But we can conclude that Wilson did not lie to the GJ as the audio transcript proves he did know. Did not the OP know about the transcripts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmergantry (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 09:55 AM

13. What page are the audio transcripts on?

Thanks, it's taking awhile to get through the 4000 thousand pages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #13)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 10:07 AM

15. Here's a link for just the radio traffic transcript

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370609-radio-traffic.html

The relevant portion appears to start with track 349

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #15)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 10:28 AM

21. No indication Wilson (21) heard call about theft.

Maybe you can identify where he acknowledges report given on track 349? Seems he was responding to baby having trouble breathing (Glednark (344)). Odd they include no time checks or time indexing. Even the Dallas tapes from 1963 had time indexing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #21)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 10:53 AM

29. You need to read a little farther

He reports in at #364 and asks officers 22&25 if they need his help. One of them responds that the suspects have disappeared and then we learn that he has left the prior call and is heading to where they are (Canfield is the direct route to where they were last seen)

How does he know what 22&25 are working on (or even that they're working together on something or that they might need help) if he didn't hear the prior calls?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #29)


Response to FBaggins (Reply #29)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 11:45 AM

48. Seems 22 and 25 when they last talked to Wilson were looking for a guy in Sharondale apartments.

See track 325, then Wilson breaks away to at 346 to go to baby at Glenark.

No indication Wilson knew if 22 and 25 weren't still looking for Sharondale guy. In fact 22 seems still to be on that case even after dispatcher reports Quick trip theft.


In fact no indication Wilson know what his fellow officers were working on.

When Wilson first contacts Brown and Johnson, it is about walking on street...nothing about theft. Or is that also disputed?

Why would Police Chief (Below) state Wilson knew nothing of theft after releasing video at store?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #48)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:16 PM

55. Correct, Wilson has no idea who the two teens are. Some people must pretend otherwise

 

to keep their weak narrative going.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #55)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:21 PM

58. Hardly. The "weak narrative" here is clear

We obviously have a bunch of people who think that you need to be perfect angel to deserve to not be killed by a policeman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #58)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:27 PM

62. And a few here believe a cop deserves to get away with murder as by the desperate attempts

 

a validating his reasons for murdering a teenager.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #62)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:56 PM

81. Don't count me with such

I believe no such thing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 10:15 AM

19. According to the audio, Wilson didn't get on the radio until noon...

At noon, Wilson reports that he’s back in service from the sick-baby call. He then asks the officers searching for the thieves – units 25 and 22 – if they need him. Seven seconds later, an unidentified officer broadcasts that the suspects had disappeared.

At 12:02 p.m., Wilson says, “21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car.” His call triggered at least two officers to head his way, including one who said he was close to Wilson.


http://www.stltoday.com/news/multimedia/special/darren-wilson-s-radio-calls-show-fatal-encounter-was-brief/html_79c17aed-0dbe-514d-ba32-bad908056790.html


Wilson encountered Brown at 12:01 pm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BklnDem75 (Reply #19)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 10:40 AM

24. Brown's family's lawyers say stop had nothing to do with convenience store theft.

From the link in 19 above:

BROWN FAMILY LAWYERS RESPOND

Lawyers for the Brown family issued a statement Saturday saying that from the beginning the Ferguson Police Department has sought to “vilify the victim and put the shooter on a pedestal.”

The statement also said, “the audio clearly demonstrates that the initial interaction with the officer and Brown had nothing to do with the incident at the convenience store.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #24)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 11:00 AM

32. Oh I know...

The defenders will have people believe Wilson entered his car fully aware of the situation. Only posted the link to point out the inconsistencies with the timetable. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has been quite unreliable throughout this ordeal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 27, 2014, 09:34 AM

123. So did the Chief of Police. Repeatedly. At a press conference. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 09:59 AM

14. Unremorseful lying murdering sack of shit.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 10:08 AM

16. Killings

A young man was shot down by and with a gun: 2 people die every hour, 48 die every day, 17520 every year, and the defense was not allowed to present or question the officer in the grand jury

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 10:28 AM

22. Who is the Defense? The Cop was in this Prosecutor's mind.

There was no advocate or questioning litigator for the person killed. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 11:14 AM

38. Defense

Michael Brown had no defense he was dead.
Michael Browns family and there attorney could not defend him or to ask for him any questions to the grand jury, only the one sided prosecutor presentation of the "FACTS"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Reply #38)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 11:36 AM

43. That's the way a Grand Jury works.

The Grand Jury exists solely to determine whether or not an indictment is warranted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #43)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 05:19 PM

105. Yes, however

 

...during that process the prosecutor is supposed to be making a case FOR indicting (or in other words, prosecuting), not going out of their way to make sure an indictment doesn't happen. Which is what appears to have happened here.

This stream of consciousness of tweeted reactions from Lisa Bloom as she makes her way through the transcripts in total freaking disbelief at the conduct of the prosecutor over the course of a day is pretty illuminating:

https://storify.com/AtotheL/lisa-bloom-breaks-down-mcculloch-s-evidence-dump?utm_source=story&utm_media=storypage&utm_content=related

Particularly damning is the part where the prosecutor catches themselves calling it a crime, corrects themselves in front of the jury, and specifically states "not a crime, a situation"... making it as clear as possible they do NOT want the jury thinking of this as a crime. This from the person whose job it is to convince the jury that yes it damn well was a crime.


Another expert reaches the same conclusion in the LA times today:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ferguson-da-analysis-20141126-story.html

"This was a strategic and problematic use of a grand jury to get the result he wanted," said Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., director of the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute at Harvard University. "As a strategic move, it was smart; he got what he wanted without being seen as directly responsible for the result."

Sullivan called the case "the most unusual marshaling of a grand jury's resources I've seen in my 25 years as a lawyer and scholar."



In other words, the entire proceeding was rigged to not indict, just so they could then go back to the public and say "What do you want us to do? We took it to a Grand Jury! We totally tried to get justice!"



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #105)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 05:29 PM

107. I have to agree with you on every point you make here.

Unfortunately, unless the prosecutor steps aside, I don't believe, under MO. law, the Gov. can force him to empanel another GJ and I'm not sure about a special prosecutor if the current prosecutor doesn't step down.

I'm not sure about all this, maybe someone with more experience in law can clarify this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 AM

20. Why the fuck is he "herding" them with his car?

Seriously ... This has been my biggest beef with this situation all along. The story just is unbelievable, and there has to be some element to this where this guy acted out of protocol or somehow escalated the situation.

But, what cop uses his vehicle as he described here? And, seriously, if it was me, I would get a little hot, if I was wrong or right or whatever if a cop was using his car to physically impede me.

And, what cop does that? It leaves you in an at risk situation.

If he was going to address these kids, GTF out of your vehicle and get on your feet and positioned in the appropriate way that you have been trained to approach potential threats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmocat (Reply #20)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 03:49 PM

103. It doesn't seem to matter what their training is, too many cops seem to do whatever they

impulsively feel like doing and it will be defended by their cronies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 10:34 AM

23. What was said over the radio by other than Wilson does not prove shit. It proves the information was

available, that's all.

If Wilson's account was taken and preserved immediately at the incident like it would have been for any other defendant we would know. But that was exactly the point in NOT preserving these details. Every defendant should have the luxury of fine tuning his story up until the very end, abetted by the authorities who know before anyone else which evidence hurdles they must dodge to avoid being tripped up in their own lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoneFishin (Reply #23)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 10:42 AM

25. What you say to the police can and normally is used against you

that's why they read you those Miranda rights, but thanks for playing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johonny (Reply #25)

Thu Nov 27, 2014, 10:11 AM

124. That's irrelevant gibberish. But thanks for playing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoneFishin (Reply #23)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 10:46 AM

26. Not to mention colaborating with other officers on the way to and from Hospital...

to get the stories straight. No report made apparently for hours after incident.

To your point: I wonder how many of the other witnesses had the benefit of knowing the information available on the radio audio transcripts, the videos and audios from other witnesses and from the convenience store?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #26)

Thu Nov 27, 2014, 10:14 AM

125. Also, having a say in how long to leave the body in place until they decided if

they needed to stage it to match their cover story before the coroner took it away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 10:52 AM

28. Has anyone located in the jury's transcript a testimony of the distance from Wilson to Brown?

I've seen the 150+ feet from car to body and 25' more of distance to blood stains, but did anyone report the distance Wilson was from Brown when he finally dropped Brown? Was Wilson stationary when firing or was he advancing on Brown or was he at his cruiser? ou

Thanks for any link in the transcripts you can give.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #28)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 11:22 AM

39. Yes I did a few minutes ago.

 

Johnson said that Brown did not charge the officer but was gunned down where he stopped and turned around. The blood and casing location evidence does not really jibe with that. Wilson said final distance was 8-10 feet. If you look at the blood spots and casing locations relative to each other, it appears plausible. Remember Johson said that Brown did not doubleback. The evidence supports otherwise

One thing also I noted in the testimony was Johnson said Browns pants were not sagging. But the photo of him dead on the street shows otherwise. In Wilsons testimony the officer said Brown had one hand in his waist as he charged. The officer thought he may of had a weapon. I wonder if the hand in the waist was actually him holding his pants up whilst supposedly charging the officer. That would "add up" to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmergantry (Reply #39)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 11:49 AM

49. Thanks for the link on Wilson's 8'-10' testimony.

Was there any other witness reporting that distance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 10:56 AM

30. Thanks for posting, kpete. Reading this thread, I cannot BELIEVE

there are still people trying to find ways to support that POS, Wilson.

Here's something that was posted yesterday evening by dixiegrrrrl. She did not write this. There's a link to the article at the bottom. Nevertheless, it's one of the more profound statements about the unrest in Ferguson that I've encountered. Thank you, dixiegrrrrl.

Here's a link to the thread. (I don't know what happened to the 'permalink' function that used to be available).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016107684


Of all that has been said and written about Ferguson, I found this to be the most profound.



Am I the only one who is struck so deeply by this?



In Ferguson, Missouri, a festering truth about the entire United States has come to light.

What Ferguson has made clear, specifically, is that the social contract has been broken.
......we are seeing nothing less than the state proving itself illegitimate.

When the decisions of a justice system are so repugnant to a significant mass of people that the state apparatus expects and must contend with popular unrest, then this political system has lost the grounds on which political legitimacy is based.
When, on Monday, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency in Ferguson ahead of the grand jury decision,
I like to think the ghost of Jean Jacques Rousseau looked on and whispered through the icy Missouri air, "Rise up."

The social contract is broken, Rousseau stated, when a government does not represent the general will of the sovereign — the sovereign being the people, united — and when justice is not the expression of the general will of the people. And so, in Ferguson, where the National Guard must be called for fear that people will be moved to violence because of the decisions of our justice system, the social contract, it seems, is broken.

This, for Rousseau, would be grounds enough for revolution.
https://news.vice.com/article/fergusons-state-of-emergency-proves-americas-social-contract-has-been-broken


The social contract has, indeed, been broken. From where I stand, today, I don't see any way this can end, except very badly for everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truth2power (Reply #30)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 11:14 AM

37. Thanks for posting. Food for serious thought. - nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truth2power (Reply #30)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 11:56 AM

51. Only in America does a black boy go on trial for his own murder.

 

This is the sad sad fact.

When that DA read his speech and presented the transcripts and evidence it was clear that the boy was on trial. The parts about cigars are immaterial to the case. Every line Wilson testified was geared toward a guilty verdict, for the boy.

The officer is sorely lacking in training and skill if he could not fight a kid. Hulk Hogan my eye, how such a wimp ever graduated from police academy never was questioned. Even then if he was trapped in the car, driving away would have been much easier. I never saw the prosecutor ask why he did not just drive away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Central Scruitinizer (Reply #51)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:25 PM

60. "I never saw the prosecutor ask why he did not just drive away."

 

Which he could have done at anytime. The DA clearly wanted Wilson off the hook and made sure of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Central Scruitinizer (Reply #51)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:59 PM

82. I agree with everything you've said...

People keep talking about the cigars...I'm sick of hearing about the goddamn cigars. Even if Michael Brown had gotten away - had run off and couldn't be immediately detained - it didn't give Wilson the right to pump 9 (or was it 12?) bullets into his body. A handful of cigars isn't worth killing someone over.

Case in point: Some years ago I was standing in a Border's bookstore, reading a book. All of a sudden an adult male, carrying a CD case, comes tearing past me, so close that I could have tripped him if I'd put my foot out. Right behind him comes another man, who I later learned was a store employee.

Both individuals go running out the front door and the first man jumps into a car, waiting at the curb. The employee manages to grab hold of some part of the car, but it pulls away and disappears down the road.

Later, there was some discussion among several people (one of whom might have been the store manager, I don't remember), that it isn't worth anyone's life to stop the theft of a CD, and the employee shouldn't have pursued the thief. Furthermore, the employee could have been seriously injured if part of his clothing had caught on the car and he'd been dragged, as the car pulled away.

And what if there had been someone present with a concealed carry permit. Should that person have hauled out a gun and shot the thief in the back? Really? For stealing a CD?

So Wilson can STFU about the cigars. That leaves the rest of his tale, which is utter bullsh*t as far as I'm concerned. He shot Michael Brown in cold blood - because he could.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truth2power (Reply #82)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 03:09 PM

98. Sure

Let's just let criminals get away with crime. I disagree with the cigars being immaterial. It shows a mindset for Brown. He robs a store and than walked downed the middle of the street! Both Wilson and Johnson's stories agree on this point. This shows Browns's mindset at the time. I find it easy to believe that someone like that would assault a cop and try and take his gun.

I have a question for you, if the incident happened just as Wilson reported was he justified in shooting Brown?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deist99 (Reply #98)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 04:08 PM

104. Oh Good.. We need some more Law and Order Guys around here.

And of course you know all about Brown's mindset don’t you. He’s a typical thug you hear about everyday on the 6 and 11 news.....

And as to your question is... fucking no!!!

If that were me I would have retreated (back treaded) quickly back to the my car.. Open the car door and demanded he stop.. If he kept advancing I would have probably tried to take him down without killing him..

Wilson killed Brown because he was a tough guy, probably always trying to prove just how tough he is..and
simply put, killed Brown because he fucking could!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Reply #104)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 11:46 PM

113. Mindset

I cant read minds but robbing a store and then walking down the middle of the street make no sense to me, but that is what he and Johnson did! Now Wilson pulls up to them and asks them or tells them to get on the sidewalk and they ignore him!! After committing a robbery!!! You tell me what you think there mindset was.

All of that is what Johnson, Browns friend, told the grand jury. Now here is where the accounts differ. Johnson says the Wilson tried to open his door and hit them with it at which time it bounces back and closes. Then Wilson reaches out his window and grabs Brown and tries to pull him in his window. Johnson mentions no punches thrown by Brown during this time.
Wilson states that he attempted to open his door to get out of the vehicle and Brown pushed it shut. Brown then reaches into the vehiclenand starts punching Wilson and then reaches for his gun.
Considering that they had just robbed a store and walking down the middle of the street in broad daylight I find the Wilson's version of events much more believable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deist99 (Reply #113)

Thu Nov 27, 2014, 12:48 AM

116. Boy you sure put a hell of a lot of that Cigar box Robbery don’t ya..

Most racists think alike no matter how small the “ROBBERY” was, maybe $12.00.. You seem to insinuate that because of the “Robbery” he deserved what he got... Oh yea, lets not forget another important part of your argument..”They were walking in the middle of the street”..

How many bullets did he pump into Brown? I wonder if this was a 16 yr. old white kid in your neighborhood who stole a something from a Convenience Store and walked in the middle of the Street, would you believe he deserved the same fate..

I find Wilson to be nothing but a punk, who killed Brown simply to prove that he was a tough guy..

Maybe you should troll someplace else..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Reply #116)

Thu Nov 27, 2014, 08:37 AM

120. no silly...

You have to take into account that he was poor. You only get to go after poor people when they steal $12. If you're rich then you can get away with stealing MILLIONS (Wallstreet) and not worry about ANYTHING let alone about some cop shooting you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deist99 (Reply #98)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 06:56 PM

109. Please tell me what part of my post you take issue with..

Was it my anecdote about the thief at Borders? Or was it that I find the cigar issue irrelevant?

As far as the cigar issue, there's crime, and then there's crime. Just like you're not eligible for the death penalty if you steal a pack of gum, you shouldn't have to give your life for stealing a handful of cigars.

Wilson didn't act as a prudent person should, in that situation, IMO. He was the one who supposedly had all the training. He could have de-escalated (or never escalated in the first place) the situation, but he chose not to. And it beggars all credulity to believe that he approached Michael Brown and said, "Excuse me, sir, but could you please...?" He mowed Michael down in cold blood. I don't think he's cognitively capable of having considered the shitstorm he was about to stir up.

What is it they say about unintended consequences?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deist99 (Reply #98)

Thu Nov 27, 2014, 10:56 AM

126. I used to steal 4-Lokos from gas stations

I would never ever ever assult a cop and try to take their gun. Not all crime is the same.

Kids steal shit. White, black, dumb, smart. No one deserves to die for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Central Scruitinizer (Reply #51)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 10:11 PM

112. Really?

Brown was hardly a boy and he had 80 pounds on Wilson. I don't know if you have any unarmed combat training, but I have, and that is a huge difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deist99 (Reply #112)

Thu Nov 27, 2014, 05:07 AM

118. Eighty pounds?

Do you have a link to Wilson's weight and height?

I've looked and can't find anything definitive.

Oh, and welcome to DU!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deist99 (Reply #112)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 03:06 PM

127. If you have had training

 

Then you would know size does not matter.

People will go down no matter how large they are when attacked correctly.

And good training would have someone behind the wheel to just drive away, avoiding a fight is the best fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 11:04 AM

33. Will there be a civil suit?

Or does the Grand Wizard, oops Grand Jury, stop any follow up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #33)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:30 PM

67. These proceedings have no bearing on any future civil suit. But why ask, when only the family knows?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #67)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 02:20 PM

92. Why ask?

Because I didn't know. I must be stupid. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #92)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 05:33 PM

108. No, you're not stupid.

There hasn't been a definitive declaration one way or the other regarding a civil suit. The lack of indictment does not preclude the filing of a lawsuit, but any payout would almost certainly come from the department or city or state, and not Wilson personally.

The Brown family's attorney, Benjamin Crump, alluded to the possibility of a civil suit on CNN last week.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1411/20/cg.01.html

TAPPER: Is there any plan -- if there's not an indictment, is there any plan to file a civil suit against the police?

CRUMP: We will look at all appropriate legal avenues for the family of Michael Brown to get some sense of justice.


My guess is that they will file a wrongful death lawsuit or something along those lines. For them, "some sense of justice" doesn't necessarily mean getting money (though the legal purpose of such a suit is to result in a monetary judgement). I had a family member, as a pedestrian, struck and killed by a driver that we, the family, very much suspect was drunk as a skunk. Long story short, the driver was in a very cozy relationship with the police, who deliberately bungled the investigation. The prosecutor declined to pursue any charges based on the bungled investigation results (or rather, lack of them). The family wanted "some sense of justice" -- for us, that meant the driver having to at the very least ADMIT FAULT. An apology for the death at any time would have done it, too. But there was no accountability via the law, no apology, no nothing. And that made us mad. So we sued, and with what we were able to supply the lawyers with regarding the coverup, the contradictions, and the facts that were not in dispute, they were able to get the driver's insurance company to ADMIT THE FAULT OF THEIR CLIENT and also pay out the maximum amount on the policy. That amount, while substantial, was first reduced by the lawyer fees and then went to pay the funeral costs and then was distributed evenly throughout the extended family. It wasn't all that much per person, but it was never about the money. It was about PROVING and getting ADMISSION of the driver's guilt. That was all the justice we had left to go after, so we did, and that much, we got.

I have a feeling the Brown family may do much the same thing, for much the same reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 11:10 AM

36. "Robbery Had Nothing to Do with Lethal Shooting, Ferguson Police Chief Says" (Aug 15, 2014)

 

http://www.newsweek.com/police-name-officer-who-shot-mike-brown-darren-wilson-264788

Police on Friday morning announced the name of the officer who shot and killed Mike Brown last Saturday in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown’s death precipitated several days of protests and a police response widely criticized as disproportionate. At the same time, the police released a packet of information on a crime in which they said Mike Brown was a suspect, a "strong-arm" robbery in the second degree. In a separate press conference later in the day, chief Jackson said that officer Wilson had no knowledge of Brown as a suspect when he shot Brown.

Standing outside the burned-out shell of a QuikTrip in Ferguson, Police Chief Tom Jackson named Darren Wilson, a 6-year veteran, as the officer who fatally shot 18-year-old Mike Brown on Saturday.

Details concerning the shooting — including how many times Wilson shot Brown — are still murky.

Documents show that less than three minutes passed from the time that Wilson encountered Brown to the time of Brown's death, according to CNN correspondent Ana Cabrera.


Who are you going to believe - Wilson or the Police Chief?

Three months later, Wilson "remembers" differently.

Looks to me like the Prosecutor willfully suborned perjury.

He will probably be prosecuted for it....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:20 PM

57. Yeah some here refuse to believe the Chief of Police

 

because without the narrative that Wilson knew about the 'stealing' (even though the shop owner said nothing was stolen), his story falls apart completely.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 01:04 PM

84. Wilson needs to go to prison.

 


A charge of murder must be drawn from this mess.

I would not want to be a white c.o.p. in St. Louis these days.
This is the DU member formerly known as vkkv.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #84)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 01:14 PM

87. This should torque you off even more:

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/18/ferguson-pd-busted/

Ferguson Police Busted – Attempt To Defame Shooting Victim Blows Up In Their Face (VIDEO)

When the Ferguson police department released the name of Darren Wilson, they also chose to release video footage which they claimed was of Michael Brown robbing a convenience store for some cigars.

The problem is, the video shows Michael Brown at the register, paying for the cigars.

From observation, it looks as if he had tried to buy more, but then was unable to afford it, hence why he left several packets on the counter. This prompted the store owner to come out from behind the counter and have a discussion with him, which prompted the shove witnessed in the full video.

Whatever words were exchanged between the man in the video and the store owner, they were not considered very serious, as the store owner nor the employees did not report a theft at the store. According to the stores attorney, the owners were bewildered when the police approached them demanding the surveillance tapes.

(snip)

But instead it looked like he was a teenager who was enjoying a few cigars which he purchased at the local store. The store owners did not claim he stole from them. Video evidence shows him paying for the cigars found on him. The police attempt to paint Michael Brown as anything but a victim is a complete and total fraud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #87)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 03:14 PM

99. Transcipt

Sorry but that is false. The testimony that Johnson gave to the GJ he even admits that Brown stole the cigars and further states that the shop owner said he was going to call the police. His testimony starts on page 525 if you want to read it for yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deist99 (Reply #99)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 03:17 PM

100. The store owner says he did not call. Which shall I believe?

 

There is also the whole "box versus package" issue. There was a lovely thread about it back in August. That still isn't cleared up for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #100)

Thu Nov 27, 2014, 09:22 AM

121. that doesn't even make sense

 

there are cops looking for the suspects in the robbery before Wilson got involved.How could the police be looking for robbery suspects if no one ever reported a robbery?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backwoodsbob (Reply #121)

Thu Nov 27, 2014, 09:32 AM

122. One of the many mysterious inconsistencies.

 

Shop owner had no idea why the police wanted the surveillance stuff -- refused to give it to them until they provided a court order.

One DU'er did a nice analysis of "box of cigarillos" versus "individual $0.99 pack".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025398525

A box is $50 - a couple of packs was probably under $5, with video showing Michael throwing money on the counter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deist99 (Reply #99)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 11:59 PM

114. So which is it?

You take the word of Dorian Johnson on this point as gospel.

Do you then also take as given truth his account of the encounter at the SUV and the shooting?

If no, then I believe you are engaging in cherry-picking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dpibel (Reply #114)

Thu Nov 27, 2014, 07:04 AM

119. Cherry picking

When his story matches the evidence then I believe it. However when it doesn't, like his version where Brown never punched Wilson but there are photos showing he was struck, then I don't.
I am stilling going through the grand jury transcript, but so far everything I've read is leading me to conclude that Wilsons story is supported by all the evidence.
What I keep seeing here and on other websites about the story is people stating "facts" that just not supported by that evidence. Such as the Vox story that it is unbelievable that Johnson and Brown were walking done the middle of the street after robbing a store. Except for the fact that both Wilson and Johnson agree on this point! It appears the author wrote this story without reading the GJ transcripts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 11:29 AM

41. Come on! Give Officer wilson a break ...

 

he only had 2 1/2 months to rehearse his lies ... er, lines!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 11:38 AM

44. LOL ... Really? ...

 

A: As I approached them, I stopped a couple of feet in front of Johnson as they are walking toward me, I am going toward them. As Johnson came along my driver’s side mirror I said, “why don’t you guys walk on the sidewalk?” He kept walking, as he is walking, he said, “we are almost to our destination.”
Q: Do you think he used those words destination, we are almost to our destination?
A: Yes, ma’am. He said we are almost to our destination and he pointed this direction over my vehicle. So like in a northeasternly (sic) direction.


Really? Who talks like that ... certainly not Johnson.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:33 PM

69. Is that a big word, "destination"? What synonym would you have expected?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #69)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 01:16 PM

88. "We're just going over there" ...

 

like most 20-somethings would have said.

I'm not saying "destination" is outside of Johnson's vocabulary ... Just that it's NOT likely a part of his everyday, street speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:07 PM

52. In Vol.5 Page 202. of the transcript Wilson says as he is quoted above about 'store theft'

 


but at what Volume and Page # is his direct supervisor's conflicting testimony?

I found at Vol 11. PAGE 71 The dispatch officer DOES SAY THAT WILSON RESPONDED TO THE CALL ABOUT A THEFT at the Ferguson Market and asked if assistance was needed. Wilson was NOT the PRIMARY officer for that Ferguson Market call.

How about a little better reporting and citations, please.


http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.html
This is the DU member formerly known as vkkv.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #52)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:30 PM

66. Can you check your second reference?

Vol 11 page 71 is a witness transcript. There isn't anything from the dispatch officer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #52)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:55 PM

79. Sorry, make that Vol 21 - Page 71 and 72. Dispatch says Wilson responded to theft.

 


According to dispatch office who is being quoted in Vol 21. Page 71-72, Wilson comes off of the sick infant call as the primary officer, but calls into dispatch about the Ferguson Market theft...
This is the DU member formerly known as vkkv.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #52)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:55 PM

80. See post #36. Either the Chief of Police lied to the public (and never retracted)

 

or Wilson committed perjury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #80)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 02:24 PM

93. That's incorrect

He revised that statement later the same day.

Also... there are far more possibilities to two conflicting statements than that one of the two people lied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #93)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 02:52 PM

97. Link, please. I've got three quoting him, made over the course of days.

 

Nor have the respected sources updated/changed their headlines or quotes.

Please provide a link backing your statement, because I've paid close attention since August, and I have never heard what you are reporting.

I want to make sure I am keeping up with the stories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #52)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 01:12 PM

86. Okay, Vol 5. Pages 52-53 witness establablishes that Wilson did NOT KNOW about the robbery.

 

The FireDog Lake site does list the Volumes and Page #'s, thankfully.
This is the DU member formerly known as vkkv.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #86)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 01:19 PM

89. FIVE MUST READ PAGES from transcript: (eg; Someone is lying)

 

FIVE MUST READ PAGES from transcript: (eg; Someone is lying)


Vol 5 Pages 52 - 53
Vol 5 Pages 202
Vol 21 Pages 71-72

Someone is lying.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.html
This is the DU member formerly known as vkkv.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:23 PM

59. Yeah the Chief of Police fucked it all up for Wilson by declaring he knew nothing

 

about a market theft. Sadly, people here will be desperate enough to ignore that...anything to protect a cop.

Pathetic, but predictable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #59)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:31 PM

68. "the Chief of Police fucked it all up for Wilson": Not really, as the IGNORANT GJ just showed us.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #68)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:36 PM

71. Painful, but good point.

 

True they must have missed that page or perhaps it was not admitted as evidence. Seems like all the DA wanted, was to get Wilson off the hook without it looking like he was involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #71)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:40 PM

72. And the thing is, this contradiction, a MAJOR one, ought to have forced a trial. Instead, the GJ

 

somehow bizarrely concluded that "It's all too much, too complicated, can't sort it all out, what good would a trial do, a pox on both their houses, let's go home."

So home they went.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #72)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:45 PM

73. The DA never planned on the GJ coming back with an inditement.

 

So he made it as hard to understand as possible, knowing mere mortals would throw up their hands in frustration and defeat. And everyone obviously knew it from the governor on down to the Chief of Police. It is amazing watching this scale of injustice go by the wayside.

I would love to see what the DoJ and FBI are concluding about all this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #73)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:52 PM

76. God, remember how the DoJ used to act? Little Rock and Ike; U Of Alabama and JFK and the great

 

Nicholas Katzenbach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 12:53 PM

77. And the Ferguson Police Chief confirms that Wilson did not know about the alleged robbery:

Ferguson Police Chief Officer Didn't Stop Brown As Robbery Suspect

- The Ferguson police officer who shot Michael Brown didn't stop him because he was suspected in a convenience-store robbery, but because he was "walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic," the city's police chief said Friday.


Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson -- hours after documents came out labeling the 18-year-old Brown as the "primary suspect" in the store theft -- told reporters the "robbery does not relate to the initial contact between the officer and Michael Brown."


This was on the day they released Wilson's name, AND released the video at the same time. Reporters asked the Chief if they released the video to show that Wilson knew about it and that was the reason for stopping him.

Note how he says 'in the initial contact'. They were working on how to tie the two events imo. But they had to get the times straight so he had to admit that this was not the reason for stopping them. Later they claimed that during the stop Wilson heard the call about the robbery.

This is why there needs to be a trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 01:00 PM

83. Will he be at least indicted for perjury?

At a minimum he lied under oath. The Brown family need to be given something!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 02:32 PM

95. K&R Happy Thanksgiving kpete n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 02:36 PM

96. FIVE MUST READ PAGES from transcript (Someone is lying and they are most likely the accused)

 

FIVE MUST READ PAGES from transcript (Someone is lying and they are most likely the accused)


Vol 5 Pages 52 - 53
Vol 5 Pages 202
Vol 21 Pages 71-72


http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.html
This is the DU member formerly known as vkkv.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 05:21 PM

106. Yes he did. Of course I EXPECTED that. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Nov 26, 2014, 08:18 PM

110. He said what he was TOLD to say,.....and still is.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Nov 27, 2014, 01:56 AM

117. ,

 

,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread