cleduc
cleduc's JournalWhat did we expect the cop would say?
"I smoked the n-word. Put me on death row!" ? (/sarcasm)
Isn't the kind of explanation given to CNN via Dana's radio show to be expected?
I can understand with the heated feelings about this why it might upset.
But if folks want this officer convicted for killing Mike Brown, cutting through this kind of defense is what it's going to take. And it's not necessarily going to be easy.
We can wring our hands and rant in frustration or go out and riot. Or we can scrutinize what is being claimed and punch holes in it. I think the latter has a much better chance of helping obtaining justice for Mike Brown. Those defending officer Wilson are already on the offensive trying to make the victim the criminal. And they'll be trying to punch holes in the eyewitness accounts. That isn't going to stop anytime soon. Innuendo and opinion or relying on flimsy, emotional reasoning are not going to resonate in a court or the media nearly as much as the verifiable facts and solid reasoning. Scrutinize it. Look for those. One of you might see something that could help.
To me, that's a constructive way to react to this.
I have stated many times that this thing with the cop smells real bad
And so did what Zimmerman did to Trayvon Martin.
Now we had all kinds of great rhetoric and outrage when Trayvon got blown away. Right? What did it get us? A lousy case by the prosecutor and Zimmerman walks.
So I see a bit of a deja vu here. Shallow stuff like "4 witnesses say it and therefore, it must be true" and you're a racist if you don't ignore what the officer is saying (now corroborated by CNN confirming source):
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/08/19/ac-radio-show-account-michael-brown-death.cnn.html
and another witness is saying:
So we have a dispute in the testimony to some extent. Many would feel, including me, that the officer's side is less credible and more suspicious. So would you, because it represents the 50 ft to 35 ft tale.
To me, it doesn't hurt to look objectively at the officer's position because one of two things will result:
a) it gets verified as being truthful and therefore, we don't want to convict an innocent man
b) more likely based upon what I know of the case so far, it gets holes blown in it so it won't stand up in court
Likewise, it doesn't hurt to look objectively at Mike Brown for similar reasons and possible outcomes.
I think with the power of the internet and so many critical eyes on this case, such scrutiny might improve the legal argument such that justice can be done for Mike Brown with a better quality legal position that wasn't done for Trayvon Martin. Maybe we'll fall short but I can't see the harm in trying.
I posted this over at Daily Kos tonight when I got confronted with racism:
So what are you selling? Because the victim is black, we're not supposed to examine his actions?
Race should have nothing to do with it.
Step back for a moment:
A police officer shoots an unarmed man. You can swap races to your hearts content on which race did what in that example. The actions of both parties should be examined to determine if the actions of the shooter were justified.
If the roles were reversed, would it be racist to examine the actions of the black cop?
Just because in this case, the victim happens to be black, one wanting to examine the actions of a victim doesn't make that examiner a racist. Both parties have rights. You should treat both parties as equals, shouldn't you?
Now I realize that in places like Ferguson, there is a disproportionate number of blacks getting knocked off, discriminated against, etc. And that is a horrific disgrace that seems to have frustratingly gone on all my life and still badly needs to be corrected. The bright lights on Ferguson right now are likely to bring about some good change in that regard such that Mike Brown won't have died for nothing. But let's correct it with real equality - even in the court cases that decide such issues. Take the high road.
If Brown's actions didn't warrant him to be shot, we should be able to scrutinize them to pieces and still arrive at a just conclusion.
To me, I wonder when someone says "you can't go there because he's black" if that isn't racism or a double standard.
The sooner we stop with the labels and just say 'that man did this and that other man did that", regardless of race, the sooner we achieve real equality.
To me, Mike Brown isn't a black man. He a man and that's how he should be treated in our discussions, our justice system and even in death. And I will never apologize for treating him that way nor accept being labeled as a racist when I try to look at his actions objectively that way in the interest of truth and justice - whether they're good or bad actions.
A little history: I was a little student worker bee for RFK's campaign and MLK when they were alive. Protested the Vietnam war. Streaked against Nixon's "I have nothing to hide". Won my first gay rights battle in '74 - got some funding. Lost a student housing fight that made front pages in '76. Etc - right through to helping Obama get elected, etc. I've been fighting my little fights for civil and human rights for 51 years. So calling me a racist or as someone else called me tonight a "racist troll" is a little tough to take.
If you want to bring down this cop:
1) make sure he's guilty
2) make sure you've got an airtight case against him and all the BS they'll bring up trying to sway it
and that's what I've been trying to do.
I have tried hard to be objective with this issue - on both sides
I still do not feel I can argue with Dr Baden declaring the autopsy inconclusive. He'd know a heck of a lot more about that than I ever will.
But while digesting the press conference and NYT article on this autopsy, I must confess that I'm having some trouble with it. It gets increasingly harder to defend Wilson.
Innocent until proven otherwise:
It looks like Brown stole the cigarillos (not good for Brown)
Wilson allegedly asks Brown & Johnson to get off the road - maybe rudely (maybe not good for Wilson or Brown)
It looks like Wilson fingered Brown for the cigarillos after he started to drive off
It looks like Brown got into an altercation with a police officer (not good for Brown)
It looks like Wilson got into an altercation with Brown (maybe not entirely good for Wilson on the basis of how he handled himself or executed his attempt to arrest Brown)
Wilson allegedly shot Brown accidentally during the struggle at the cruiser according to Johnson (maybe not good for Wilson)
Brown runs away from a police officer trying to apprehend him (not good for Brown)
Wilson allegedly gets out of his cruiser and starts after Brown
Rightly or wrongly, Wilson fires more shots - some that hit Brown's hands/arms/secondary chest (ignoring the head shots for the moment)
Up to this point in time, there's no catastrophic thing. No big felony. No certain loss of life. If it ended there without loss of life, we'd very probably never have heard about it.
In my opinion, only two shots are really key: the head shots.
So far, four or more witnesses maintain Brown stopped and was submissive or put his hands up.
So far, two less credible sources maintain Brown headed back towards the officer.
One head shot entered above his right eye and headed downwards through his jaw into his collarbone area.
The other head shot entered the crown of his skull and was apparently the most devastating.
Brown stood 6'4", 292lbs - a big guy.
Wilson apparently is tallish and lanky, but not significantly taller than Brown that I'm aware and he may well be shorter. If he spread his feet when he shot, as is recommended procedure to steady the gun, the gun would be even lower.
Where I get into trouble is trying to imagine the trajectory of both those shots. Brown's head would have to be lower than where Wilson had his gun if the bullet went fairly straight through from his eye through his jaw. And it would also have to be pretty low for Wilson's bullet to not deflect off the crown of his skull bone - to instead pierce the skull and rattle around in his head.
If Brown had been shot in the gut, he might have doubled over. But the other shots either hit high which would tend to make him more erect or near the end of his arms which wouldn't do much to move the body and head.
So the only likely "simple" way I can imagine without writing a book here on all the possible permutations, would be if Brown charged Wilson, lowering his head like a bull as he ran towards him - and the first head shot didn't knock him off that line of attack.
The projected trajectory of those bullets going into his head is probably going to be a big deal.
I've tried my best to be objective and will continue to do so but it's getting even harder to defend Wilson with this autopsy report.
"The video proves that he nor his friend took a box of Swishers that day."
I do not agree.
Dorian Johnson admitted to Mike taking the cigarillos
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/darren-wilson-identified-killed-18-year-old-michael-brown-article-1.1904539
Freeman Bosley, a former St. Louis mayor and the lawyer for Brown’s friend, 22-year-old Dorian Johnson, confirmed the slain teen took the cigars.
“My client did tell us — and told the FBI — that they went into the store,” Bosley said on MSNBC. “He told the FBI that he did take cigarillos. He told that to the DOJ and the St. Louis County Police.”
Not a good thing for him if he lied to the police, DOJ and FBI.
And there's little motive for him to lie about that. He wasn't seen stealing nor assaulting the store employees.
and in this post, Dorian Johnson says when describing the event that led to the shooting:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5404451
2:40 "Mike's hands were filled with cigarillos. His hands were not free. His hands were filled"
Later on in the interview, at 5:11, during the altercation at the cruiser, Dorian says Mike passed the cigarillos ("hold these"he had to Dorian to free Mike's hands.
That's important because some accounts suggest the officer stopped originally because of the jaywalking but the officer figured out not long afterwards that these two may have been involved with the recent robbery of cigars. From Dorian's account, it's not unreasonable to accept the notion that the cigarillos were plainly visible.
And the police confirmed they recovered the cigarillos from that crime scene, that they alleged matched what was claimed to have been stolen. Those are likely to have Mike's fingerprints and DNA on them.
Now this is only "important" for the shooting IF Wilson claims what Chief Jaskson said - that he'd heard the radio report and saw the cigarillos in Brown's hands which caused him to back up his cruiser and reengage. If that's what happened, I don't see the Civil Rights issue prevailing in this particular case. And I don't think it and the subsequent altercation at the cruiser automatically provides Wilson with the right to blow the young man away.
I'm not positive but I recall a couple of days ago
something to the effect that Wilson remained at the crime seen for hours (six is the number I recall) and then went to the hospital for treatment of his swollen face. St Louis County police were in charge not long after the shooting.
Dana Loesch has worked with/for CNN before
(I don't particularly care for or trust her opinions)
Alleged Friend Of Officer Darren Wilson Offers His Side Aug 15th
http://danaloeschradio.com/alleged-friend-of-officer-darren-wilson-offers-his-side/
I did see or hear some observations about brains on the road
The crowd that gathered and contributed audio to the crime scene videos were commenting that he was dead - before EMS appeared.
Those head shots were pretty catastrophic
The log said EMS were called at 12:04
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/08/15/ferguson-police-report.pdfLog for Wilson on prior call for sick child was between 11:45 and 12:00.
Robbery at around 11:52am
Altercation between Wilson and Brown starts at around 12:01-12:02
EMS were called at 12:04 (that may have been after the first shot fired as Wilson didn't get out of his cruiser right away - may have radioed it in then)
EMS who helped child arrive on scene at ? (some minutes later)
I'm not sure how much one can blame the police for EMS response time. Crowd forming may have contributed to their delay.
Says who?
What police agency releases an incomplete report on a shooting ?
The Jackson police released info on the robbery as they were compelled to do under the Sunshine Act.
I don't get this.
The investigation of the shooting is ongoing.
They've had press conferences to outline what they're up to.
The St Louis County Police are conducting the investigation - not the Ferguson police.
The FBI/AG Holder are looking into the Civil Rights aspects.
The prosecutor says the next step will be to take the evidence collected when they've completed their investigation to a Grand Jury. They've already started work towards preparing for the Grand Jury to speed this along as best as they reasonably can without compromising the case.
Who promised a police report on the shooting would already be delivered at this point?
This is not Chief Jackson's call - whether to charge Wilson or not - whatsoever. So the top post seems nonsensical to me.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Jul 13, 2012, 12:38 PMNumber of posts: 653
