MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #12

[TorisMom003]

Seems like we would see them spilled all over the scene. I wonder if they fell into OW's truck in the struggle

Typically each box of Swisher Sweets is wrapped in plastic. Box and all. I wouldn't expect to see any singles out on the street or the SUV.

MOO

 

[Foxfire]

Another question because I may have missed this. Did the witnesses in the car that DJ was hiding behind ever come forward? I would think they had a good view of what happened.

Possibly, LambChop. But if it was me, I could only testify to what I saw that caused me to hoover closely to the floorboard of the car..

 

[Tawny]

Seems like we would see them spilled all over the scene. I wonder if they fell into OW's truck in the struggle

I'm attempting to locate an early article that stated Dorian had them and turned them over to police. Maybe MB handed them off to him? I'm trying to find it!

 

[TheDuchess]

Typically each box of Swisher Sweets is wrapped in plastic. Box and all. I wouldn't expect to see any singles out on the street or the SUV.

MOO

Right, but it may have been a box that was pre-opened in order to sell individual cigars. So if that were the case, they would likely spill out.

 

[reedus23]

What others released information other than what was requested under the sunshine law. Not talking about private citizens talking with media but officials. Wasn't all the info released in a news conference by the Chief according to sunshine law requests, such as the officer's name, injuries and the video? If not do you have a link?

I don't think the information about the injuries were due to a FOI request.

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/darren-wilson-injuries-michael-brown-scuffle/2014/08/21/id/590101/

The robbery information was purportedly and that has been linked, though I will say I only wish all FOIA requests went that quickly and smoothly. There is a link upthread concerning a TV interview with some TV "expert" talking about that exact issue as well.

Josie's statements on the radio have been linked ad naseum and I can go find it yet again if I really need to.

 

[Tawny]

Right, but it may have been a box that was pre-opened in order to sell individual cigars. So if that were the case, they would likely spill out.

What's the significance regarding whether the cigars were opened or not? I'm lost

 

[Lovejac]

I don't think the information about the injuries were due to a FOI request.

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/darren-wilson-injuries-michael-brown-scuffle/2014/08/21/id/590101/

The robbery information was purportedly and that has been linked, though I will say I only wish all FOIA requests went that quickly and smoothly. There is a link upthread concerning a TV interview with some TV "expert" talking about that exact issue as well.

Josie's statements on the radio have been linked ad naseum and I can go find it yet again if I really need to.

FOIA for Caylee Anthony's case went that quickly and smoothly, too :happydance:

 

[DebinGA]

Typically each box of Swisher Sweets is wrapped in plastic. Box and all. I wouldn't expect to see any singles out on the street or the SUV.

MOO

In the store video, as the female customer and child walk past him, MB seems to be picking several somethings off the floor. What DJ returned to the counter appeared to be a box to me. But MB seemed to be hurriedly reaching over and grabbing multiple things from behind the counter, with some spilling onto the floor. Boxes, packages, whatever ...

 

[bwt42]

fess up admit it !

some of us would love to know if his silky smooth tech worked or did she hang up HA! And at another lvele hey in court he was being human , i think it is just funny in the context of the whole mess. Who would of thought , if accurate , that it gives the only timeline in terms of how long the event occurred- that is the irony of the whole thing. I do think it authentic if it were fake the indiv would not IMO put himself in audio (maybe extreme Narcissit? ha

Also think it was just sex as opposed to media have to class it up. Is there a need for "videos" if you think your wife is pretty - she is right there! He was cruising online!

He soundd like Don Cornelius on "Soul Train".

 

[reedus23]

FOIA for Caylee Anthony's case went that quickly and smoothly, too :happydance:

Didn't follow that case...wasn't that in Florida?

 

[Oceans]

Yikes!! That makes no sense at all. If they're trained to stop, and not kill right away, why would they aim for center body mass where the spinal cord, heart, lungs, and all the vital organs except the brain are located? My understanding is they aim for center body mass because that's obviously the easiest to hit-----and yes that's where all the organs are, but they're vital organs.

I found the transcript from last night's show. Here is what Judge Alex Ferrer said, maybe that gives a better explanation:

LEMON: Janet, when you hear the number of shots, right, 10, I thought I heard 11. But they said that was probably an echo that I was hearing in the recording. Police are trained to shoot. Why shoot to kill? Why shoot to -- and usually to unload their gun.

FERRER: That's what they're shot [SIC] to go. I mean, they're...

JOHNSON: Right. But my defense would be, if I'm defending the officer, Officer Wilson, my defense would be first of all, he's not that experienced. I don't know how good a shot he is, because they're bullets that we can't find. Or maybe they have found them, and we don't know it. But my defense would be he wasn't going to kill him. He was shooting him in his arms shooting. He was shooting him in a way that would just disable him.

FERRER: Don -- Don, this is -- I heard Ben Carson say something the other day, and I couldn't believe how wrong he was. He said one of the things we have to find out is police officers are shot [SIC] to stop and they're shot [SIC] to kill. Why did he choose to shoot to kill? And that's just flat-out wrong.

Police officers are taught to shoot to stop, and they shoot for center of mass. That's what they shoot for. Because you don't shoot for hands or feet or legs, because those move. And that's how you kill bystanders behind. You shoot for the center of mass. That's where the organs are and that's what's most likely to put something down. That's what all police officers are taught.

HOSTIN: But you know what I think we need to...

FERRER: Now, the other thing that you have to know is that you're not taught to -- it's not like television. You know, everybody sees, like, 007 go tap-tap, and the person goes down. That's not the way it is. In the situation where you're afraid for your life and you pull your gun to shoot, you're shooting. And a lot of times what people do is when they pull the trigger, they push the barrel of the gun in this direction. And that's why possibly he was getting the right arm.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1408/26/cnnt.01.html

 

[TorisMom003]

In the store video, as the female customer and child walk past him, MB seems to be picking several somethings off the floor. What DJ returned to the counter appeared to be a box to me. But MB seemed to be hurriedly reaching over and grabbing multiple things from behind the counter, with some spilling onto the floor.

IMO those were more boxes of the Swisher Sweets. It looked to me, from the video, that the box containing several smaller boxes of Swisher Sweets was placed on the counter. Brown took more than one smaller box of Swisher Sweets and several fell on the floor.

MOO

 

[DebinGA]

Right, but it may have been a box that was pre-opened in order to sell individual cigars. So if that were the case, they would likely spill out.

The cigarillos are individually wrapped within the box too.

 

[Frydaddy]

Frydaddy, I went and started reading your post on the media thread but before I got to your analysis of the statements I stopped because I wanted to read them for myself and get my initial take before reading others analysis. You've put in a ton of time and did great work on that and I thank you for that. I cannot listen to the video interviews where I am right now and it appeared you had transcribed the statements. If so, even more kudos for taking that kind of time. That's no small undertaking. However, I didn't see where the transcriptions were. Did I just completely overlook them? Did I miss a link? Were they not in that post?

Thanks again. I have some thoughts on Black Canseco and would love to discuss that with you down the road, but I'd really like to get through all the statements first.

My apologies, moving them did not drag anything in quotes over, which means they are missing the statements from the two (lol - the most important part). I had hoped to point people to the easiest spot to view them, but I should have checked them first.

If you go to thread 5, post 293, you will see my original post on Crenshaw, I think that will make more sense as her words are in quotes.
If you go to thread 5, post 1046, that's Mitchell. If you go to first post in this thread, that is likely the quickest route to thread 5.

I tried to format things in the same way on both, but I simply didn't have the time to get it exact. It looks a little clumsy, I take responsibility for that.

Take your time, I ain't going anywhere and I know we posters have other obligations in life to attend to. And thanks so much for your kind words, I am humbled and appreciative!

 

[K_Z]

There is wealth of kowledge here.I knew very little about G/J until you all. But my main conclusion from that is that theG/J is noting but cover for a prosecor later if needed on appeal. Hambirg is it not true (oh no sound like a court questioo) is that even if teh G/J says do not indict the fereral procedcutor can go ahead and chagre him and go through the whole rig a ma roll lno matter what the G/J thinks . That is my understanding - is that accurate???

I'm not Hambirg, but I have some thoughts on this.

The potential for State prosecution and Federal prosecution are separate issues. This is one area where there is the possibility of being tried twice for the same "event"-- although the goals and charges that can be brought by the State and the Feds differ.

IMO, it's an interesting little suspension of "double jeopardy". It gives the Feds another "bite of the apple", as it were, to decide if they want to bring civil rights violation charges, or "hate crimes" charges. The Feds cannot bring murder/ manslaughter, etc criminal charges, as I understand it (IANAL)-- that is the responsibility of the state. Back during the Zimmerman trial, I researched the Federal Government bringing hate crimes charges, as the law is only a few years old. Back then, there had only been about 6-8 cases brought successfully by the Feds for hate crimes, and all of those were very gruesomely clear cut (things such as carving hate speech into the victim's bodies, etc).

This is a nice article about the serious difficulties faced by a potential federal prosecution of OW. IMO, there is not even close to enough evidence of the "intent to deprive MB of his civil rights," or the "intent to use more force than was reasonably necessary" to bring a case.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-government-faces-high-bar-charging-cop-ferguson-194253536.html

What makes it difficult for the U.S. Justice Department to prosecute local police for criminal civil rights violations, even when a death results, is the high bar of proving an officer's intent to violate civil rights.

Under laws in the United States, criminal charges of murder or manslaughter are most often left to the states, and federal criminal charges typically are brought against local law enforcement as violations of people's civil rights.

“The government has to show that the police officer acted with specific intent to use more force than was reasonably necessary under the circumstances. You can’t prosecute a police officer for making a mistake or even for a lack of judgment,” said William Yeomans, a former acting head of the Civil Rights Division.

"That can be particularly hard," he said. "They rarely set out to shoot someone.”

BBM. The fact that OW was at another police call only minutes before responding, and the extremely brief duration of the entire encounter with MB, the fact of the physical struggle while OW was still INSIDE his police vehicle, the injuries sustained by the officer in the struggle in the vehicle, all indicate strongly to me that there was never any intent to deprive MB of civil rights, nor was excessive force used. Of course, others will see it differently.

I don't think the decision whether or not to try OW by the Feds will be made until AFTER the GJ does their work and returns their opinion. And if there is an indictment, the feds will still hold off to see how a trial goes, before they decide whether or not to prosecute.

I strongly believe nothing will happen with a federal case, although it will be used as a political saber-rattling technique for months to come. There just isn't enough strong and clear evidence, IMO, to bother with a federal case. But then, Eric Holder is involved, so the politics of the situation may dictate what happens, not the evidence-- again, IMO.

ETA: I recommend reading the whole article linked above-- it's not that long, and it contains a lot of specific cases that the Feds chose to prosecute, as well as cases they chose NOT to prosecute.

 

[TheDuchess]

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/2...-fatally-shot-by-chicago-police-seeks-justice

Another one in the news today, but this apparently happened last year and it was captured on video. I won't comment on the video, but you can watch for yourself. I think what this video does show (and why I think it is relevant for this conversation) is that even with the video, I believe people will see the incident differently. So while helpful, I really don't think that video necessarily answers every question.

P.S. It is a video of an unarmed man being shot to death by an off-duty police officer working as a security guard at an apartment complex.

 

[Yoda]

This is an interview of Ms. Crenshaw, the day of the shooting, at the scene. I hadn't realize she had hung out with MB. There are several videos so scroll down a little,

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/crime/2014/08/09/police-shooting-ferguson/13832083/

 

[jggordo]

Question for all you brilliant WSers. I keep hearing about the fact that DW did not know about the armed robbery at the initial contact with MB and DJ. But has there ever been any kind of statement that indicated DW knew about (or didn't know about) the armed robbery at some point during the incident?

I believe he did know about the robbery. Some of the media was able to get scanner traffic before the feed was removed by LE because of the investigation. I think when OW initially rolled up and rolled down his window to get out of the street and not obstruct traffic he didn't connect with the description until he saw the cigars. Then rolled on, maybe calling for backup before throwing it in reverse. There must be reason second car arrived so quickly.

I also think that if MB and DJ had not been walking in the street OW would have cruised by without noticing. Strong Armed Robbery 101.

JMO

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/27/605807...hael-brown-here-s-why-he-probably-won-t-go-to

 

[reedus23]

My apologies, moving them did not drag anything in quotes over, which means they are missing the statements from the two (lol - the most important part). I had hoped to point people to the easiest spot to view them, but I should have checked them first.

If you go to thread 5, post 293, you will see my original post on Crenshaw, I think that will make more sense as her words are in quotes.
If you go to thread 5, post 1046, that's Mitchell. If you go to first post in this thread, that is likely the quickest route to thread 5.

I tried to format things in the same way on both, but I simply didn't have the time to get it exact. It looks a little clumsy, I take responsibility for that.

Take your time, I ain't going anywhere and I know we posters have other obligations in life to attend to. And thanks so much for your kind words, I am humbled and appreciative!

Gotta say, you're too much my friend. You could have simply told me to go through your post history to find it or run a search. Many many many thanks for pointing me to the specific posts.

 

[Amber29]

The release of the video was explained during a press conference. If there was video of the shooting and the media filed a request to have that video released, then it would either be released immediately or it would be heard by a judge to have the video released. The release of the video was not part of a smear campaign against Brown. And truth be told, if Brown had behaved in the way that other law abiding citizens do instead of the way criminals do, then there would be nothing that goes against Brown in the video.

MOO

BBM I agree with your whole post but especially the bolded! Thank you!