Imo, the interpretation of 'they' in that statement is that she is lumping ODW, with all LE, together as one; stereotyping...labeling... 'Five-O'..
"He shot him" would come from someone who saw Wilson shoot Mike Brown. "They shot him" would indicate someone reacting to news they heard well after the fact. "I witnessed the cop chase after him" would come from someone who saw Wilson shoot Mike Brown, "I witnessed the police chase after him" would indicate multiple cops or not getting the story she was supposed to tell right.
Everybody is extremely mad at this, this is another Trayvon Martin story. A young man died before his time because of brutality from a different race, its racial profiling.
This in the hours immediately after the shooting, probably coached or influenced, like her accounts of the shooting, by Shahid.
I question how she saw the tussle from the opposite side of the car with dark tinted windows of the police cruiser. She admits she couldn't see the other side of the SUV in another statement, yet gives the same account as Tiffany about the tussle she couldn't possibly have seen? She got the tussle second hand from Johnson through Shahid, just like Mitchell did.
Crenshaw said the reason she looked out the window was because Tiffany was calling her to "come down" for work. That indicates Tiffany was there. If Tiffany was on site, the scuffle was happening as she pulled up, so there would be no nonchalant "come down" for work. It would be "there's a fight with a cop down here". Tiffany mentions consistently when she arrived that she pulled out her phone to shoot video, but didn't because of shots fired. Pulling out your phone indicates it was in her purse or pocket. So, best case scenario for them is that Tiffany called before she arrived on Canfield, then put her phone in her purse. In that scenario, Piaget would have looked out the window and either saw nothing or saw the very beginning when the cop first approached Brown and Johnson. And if she saw the very beginning, with phone in hand from the call from Tiffany, she would surely have recorded the event or included it in her statements. If she saw nothing, she'd have went on with her business until, at best, she heard the first gunshot, missing the tussle part. When she finally did record, there was no focus on Wilson specifically. If I saw Wilson shoot Mike Brown in cold blood, I don't think "they shot this boy" would be my comment on the recording while I am scanning all around, it would have been "that's the SOB who executed this kid in broad daylight" focusing as clearly and concisely as I could on Wilson to show someone in authority who it was.
Um, well, when I looked out the window and saw the original tussle going on, I quickly grabbed my purse, tried to run to the other window and at that time it was over with. I heard the shots fired and I saw the hole with the building in it and Michael was running down the street at that time.
If no one is swayed by the "they" versus "he", the phone call that caused her to look out the window, the recording after the fact, or that she couldn't see the tussle on the other side of the car, this last quote is the mess that should conclude it. I heard the shots, not I saw him shoot. Why grab the purse??? Who looks away as something like this is happening? Brady did the same thing. She saw the hole in the building from her apartment - what kind of eagle eyes and attention to detail did that require in the chaotic 50 second this lasted? And this quote was in response to "Could you tell who fired the first shot?"
I honestly don't see how anyone could believe a word out of her mouth. I think the reason no one impeaches her is because once you acknowledge that one witness simply relayed a story they were told, you have no choice to wonder the same about the other three.
By the way Foxfire, I am not directing this post at you, just used your post as a place to chime in.
