MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #11

[TexanMom]

The WaPo examined DW's life in a guilt-by-association hit piece over the weekend. There were 3 writers named in the by-line and 6 more "contributors" noted at the end. There was nothing at all negative about DW himself anywhere in the article, despite their best efforts to smear him with the tar of a troubled upbringing and a discredited former police department.

The NYT also went dirt-digging over the weekend using 6 named writers/contributors, and also found zip, zero, nada negative about Darren Wilson himself.

Imagine what sworn law enforcement officers across America, active and retired, think when they see this young officer being crucified and terrorized before their very eyes? If a no-bill brings about "massive protests," I hope they're dwarfed by push-back from millions of fellow officers currently waiting and watching, but ready to make themselves heard if DW is sacrificed simply to stop emotionally-driven mobs from burning down their communities.

It would seriously dissuade anyone from wanting to become a police officer. I think the police should pull out of Ferguson and let the residents there see how well that works.

 

[TheDuchess]

New Dorian interview with Don Lemon. Not sure if it has been posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbyGwbcyOWs

Interesting information I took from his interview: He mentions that people keep calling him a "witness" but he feels that he is also a "victim" and that he not run for cover that he too would have been shot to death.

That is a HUGE stretch to me. He WASN'T shot to death. But MB was shot to death. Why might that be? So he is basically saying that DW decided to shoot and kill one innocent kid in broad daylight, but chose to do nothing about the witness that was "standing right beside him?"

It shows me that MB and DJ both reacted very differently to the situation, which is why one of the men is dead and the other is giving interviews on CNN.

 

[SStarr33]

Compilation of DJ's various statements to show inconsistencies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1EEbsvBZv0

 

[SStarr33]

Interesting information I took from his interview: He mentions that people keep calling him a "witness" but he feels that he is also a "victim" and that he not run for cover that he too would have been shot to death.

That is a HUGE stretch to me. He WASN'T shot to death. But MB was shot to death. Why might that be? So he is basically saying that DW decided to shoot and kill one innocent kid in broad daylight, but chose to do nothing about the witness that was "standing right beside him?"

It shows me that MB and DJ both reacted very differently to the situation, which is why one of the men is dead and the other is giving interviews on CNN.

He has to call himself a victim so he can get paid when the settlements come it.

 

[reedus23]

I don't disagree. But, with the FBI and Eric Holder on the case, the lack of trust must also extend to them in order for them to continue to do this. I comprehend the lack of trust of the LE involved in the shooting (FPD, STL County PD), that is largely the bigger picture civil rights discussion going on. But, when you extend that to the Governor and Eric Holder who have hinted at leaning your way, along with the FBI, then it appears it's less a lack of trust in LE or a tilted system and more about seeking an outcome you desire more than one that is based on fact.

Honestly, if Brown was on trial for his life for taking Wilson's, I'd be more inclined to accept the actions of MB's camp. There's more historical precedent of LE using it's might to convict people in questionable circumstances. I can't say they wouldn't use that might to clear one of their own, but in this day and age of information sharing, I don't think the mechanisms that allowed LE to hide the truth in the dark are there any more. I doubt the FBI would be complicit in clearing Wilson unless they had the evidence, so at this point, the lawyers using tactics to manipulate the public (if that is what they are doing) can only serve to create more problems that they solve.

We agree yet again. My point was both sides are doing it. On MB's side: Witness statements. Videos. Audio. There's probably more. On DWs side: Robbery. Confrontation. Injuries sustained. Charging DW.

Both sides are using tactics to manipulate public perception.

 

[reedus23]

It would seriously dissuade anyone from wanting to become a police officer. I think the police should pull out of Ferguson and let the residents there see how well that works.

As crazy as it sounds, I don't disagree. I suspect the law abiding citizens would form a new police department that they have more trust in. Personally, like I said, they should give the work to the County and disband the FPD. I don't know how the FPD and the community get past these events. Guess it's possible, but it will take a lot of time and a lot of healing on both sides.

 

[magnolia]

Don't get me wrong, a part of me agrees with what you are saying. But part of me says, how is an officer involved shooting any different than any other case. I can understand a prosecuting attorney NOT submitting a case to a GJ because of evidence of justification, but once the decision is made to submit it, I still feel uncomfortable with a prosecuting attorney playing defense counsel. Just not sure how justification is any different because an officer is involved versus an ordinary citizen claiming justification. I would agree about providing forensic evidence, but the role of the prosecuting attorney, once he has decided there is enough to take it to a grand jury, is to show how the forensics match up to the evidence that supports an indictment. His job isn't to play defense attorney. Just have a problem with that and probably just have to accept that it's my problem and move on.

I tend to agree with you on the BBM.

 

[bettybaby00]

Don't get me wrong, a part of me agrees with what you are saying. But part of me says, how is an officer involved shooting any different than any other case. I can understand a prosecuting attorney NOT submitting a case to a GJ because of evidence of justification, but once the decision is made to submit it, I still feel uncomfortable with a prosecuting attorney playing defense counsel. Just not sure how justification is any different because an officer is involved versus an ordinary citizen claiming justification. I would agree about providing forensic evidence, but the role of the prosecuting attorney, once he has decided there is enough to take it to a grand jury, is to show how the forensics match up to the evidence that supports an indictment. His job isn't to play defense attorney. Just have a problem with that and probably just have to accept that it's my problem and move on.

BBM

But the DA stated, sourced up thread, that he puts ALL homicides before the GJ, and I believe that. It's a serious charge, and can potentially have serious ramifications if a DA were to start picking and choosing when he goes before a GJ.
And I mean if he were to pick and choose, and not charge someone with the crime, and does not proceed to trial. Also, I'm a big follower of JRB case, and it's my understanding that if there is a true bill, but the DA decides not to move forward, the DA is supposed to sign it, with his reasoning, and present it to the court, and it then becomes public record/transparency.

I know this is a different jurisdiction, but I would hope that, on the whole, most operate in the same manner :dunno:

 

[Lovejac]

Ok, I understand.

I guess I was trying to say that this latest "relevation" is adding yet another version of the story to the list we already have.

Prior to this, all the versions said that OW backed up. Even the police chief stated this as fact.

Now all of a sudden, someone is saying, well no he never backed up. That actually the boys were blocking his path.

It just seems like lies are circling all around.

Even if someone is walking in the middle of the road, you still have enough room to go around (if no other cars are parked on the side of the road)

This is coming from personal experience, because sometimes we have teenagers walking in the middle of the road in our neighborhood and I'm able to go around them.

 

[reedus23]

I tend to agree with you on the BBM.

I'm glad to hear I'm not alone. I was beginning to think I was and was just going to have to accept and move on.

 

[LambChop]

Stop the name calling.

 

[Lovejac]

Based on the position of the diagonally parked SUV, it would be hard to get it there without backing up. The caveat here is if that is not Wilson's SUV or if it was moved. I guess there could be a way where he angled into the other lane a little, said his piece, then started to get back over and stopped it there. Hard to say without hearing from Wilson first. I wish someone would interview these witness and ask them to lay out the location of everything in their testimony, but I am sure their lawyers would put the kibosh on that due to knowing their stories are sketchy enough as it is.

ITA. They can't even get their words lined up. Can you imagine if they tried to explain where the cars, MB, DJ and Officer Wilson where? :scared:

 

[bettybaby00]

Interesting information I took from his interview: He mentions that people keep calling him a "witness" but he feels that he is also a "victim" and that he not run for cover that he too would have been shot to death.

That is a HUGE stretch to me. He WASN'T shot to death. But MB was shot to death. Why might that be? So he is basically saying that DW decided to shoot and kill one innocent kid in broad daylight, but chose to do nothing about the witness that was "standing right beside him?"

It shows me that MB and DJ both reacted very differently to the situation, which is why one of the men is dead and the other is giving interviews on CNN.

Thanks wasn't enough. Great post!

And I still contend that DJ might not have actually "witnessed" much of the shooting. His "crouched down a bit" behind a car can mean a lot of different things, and it could mean his head wasn't raised above the sight line of the car.

 

[Lovejac]

New Dorian interview with Don Lemon. Not sure if it has been posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbyGwbcyOWs

His attorney doesn't want him to give the details of what happened that day???

He's already given his details on what happened that day to the media.

Why do they all the sudden want to shut Dorian up??

 

[tlcya]

Interesting information I took from his interview: He mentions that people keep calling him a "witness" but he feels that he is also a "victim" and that he not run for cover that he too would have been shot to death.

That is a HUGE stretch to me. He WASN'T shot to death. But MB was shot to death. Why might that be? So he is basically saying that DW decided to shoot and kill one innocent kid in broad daylight, but chose to do nothing about the witness that was "standing right beside him?"

It shows me that MB and DJ both reacted very differently to the situation, which is why one of the men is dead and the other is giving interviews on CNN.

:goodpost:

 

[DebinGA]

He seems too young to me too.

I posted earlier about Anthony Shahid here
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...teen-Michael-Brown-11&p=10897878#post10897878

I didn't watch much of MB's funeral, but there was an older fellow, who looked a lot like Shahid, prancing/dancing in front of the the family. He was wearing a bright orange outfit, including hat, and seemed to be making an intentional spectacle of himself. Dark suited ushers/security tried to herd him away without drawing undue attention, but once he'd "danced" past the family, several of whom's faces he reached out and touched, he seemed to me to be grabbed and forcibly removed.

 

[Lovejac]

His attorney doesn't want him to give the details of what happened that day???

He's already given his details on what happened that day to the media.

Why do they all the sudden want to shut Dorian up??

Also, this interview was done last night.

His attorney says that DJ has not been called to testify at the grand jury as of yesterday.

 

[CARIIS]

Lordy 6 hit him and some missed media is making it like the audio cant be real cause they heard 10 he missed do anyone do anything perfect after getting your bashed in lordy............

His hair has really changed too

a lawyer has a way to do that, the back cover of a book might benefit as well!

you tube video earlier of the witness "he shot off 7 shots" in that situation would be counting shots while vomiting or hiding behind a car or maybe hypervetnilating or maybe getting a different word choice after lawyer standing beside you or hair clean or maybe door hurdled at him so violently I would think i would be brusied if a SUV door came "violently" at me and struck me ouch. I wonder if I would even be able to dash away ..........................

 

[human]

BBM

You noticed that too? OMG I cant believe anyone would just sit there while all of these gunshots were going on and continue to chat sexy to whomever. It does make me think that gunfire is normal in that area. It has to be or the man would have told the woman 'holy moly, let me see WTH is going on.'

I live in the country and gunshots are very common.

I always say if someone wants to commit a murder, come out here. No one would even pay any attention to some gunshots.

 

[bettybaby00]

If I understand it, he never filled out an incident report that day, I don't get that :dunno:

IMO I think (judging from the chief ot that dept day one - he migh of said my oficers head is bashed in - he can do paperwork tomm - never guessing what the next 3 weeks shall turn into just a notion!

RE:: of shooting could have come from his TV set.

Since like Boston Marathon real bullets dont sound like tv or movies. These sound like the real ones IMO

I agree with poster who said the only thing in the whole mess that counts is that lets guess 15 seconds - was he lunged or hands up imo. We also should remembr that all that trajectory (strings etc) would be interesting.

but then back to legal and justice someone else will be paid to someone else to murkey everything off - it depends on who the jury likes best - how they dress, their hair, their voice, their word chose, cologne or perfume, - again nothing to do with a truth. Which actor do you like best!

??? Really. How exactly do they do that? I could understand in new movies or TV shows making that standard procedure, but what about an older, rerun of a movie or show? And what determines "what sounds real" to the average viewer?

I don't mean to seem as if I'm calling you out this just seems like something that can't be accomplished, and if they were to try, it would take years to implement....unless I'm missing something?