MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #14

[katydid23]

Next week they will do this on Monday and Tuesday... the following week on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday etc etc. They are crazy.

This is so ridiculous. And they are going to piss off the people they claim to want support from. This is so stupid.

 

[Oceans]

Next week they will do this on Monday and Tuesday... the following week on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday etc etc. They are crazy.

They should be fined put in jail for endangering others and themselves, causing chaos for so many, including LE. JMO.

 

[katydid23]

So the protestors who blocked the highway all had their hands up over their heads. But Piaget said clearly, that MB NEVER HAD HIS HANDS UP PAST HIS CHEST. So that is just deceitful spin on their part. That whole 'Hands UP' mantra is a big fat lie.

 

[reedus23]

"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.

I would suggest that juries don't buy into being grammar police. Also, an understanding and appreciation for the climate and culture in that area might help one better understand the "us versus them" culture that is present. Also, one's education level does not make them no longer a witness to events.

This in the hours immediately after the shooting, probably coached or influenced, like her accounts of the shooting, by Shahid.

I would certainly entertain this possibility if some actual facts of it happening are presented. Not just someone's presence. Some facts that he actually instructed her on what happened.

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.

Again. Opinion, and that's fine. I just want it to be clear that there is zero evidence of this beyond people being present at the same place after a white cop shot an unarmed black man. Regarding what she could see, I imagine she could see the larger picture of what was going on despite it being on the opposite side of the SUV. I can certainly tell if someone is inside or outside of the vehicle even if it's on the other side. What I wouldn't be able to tell is exactly what the scuffle entailed or the finer details of it. Having said that, you had previously made a good point about the brick wall obscuring her view. I think that should be followed up on.

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.

IMO it depends on when the phone call was made and when she went to the window. It is just as easy to believe that the phone call was made as Mitchell was approaching, letting her know she was pulling up. Then, it depends on how long it was before she looked out the window. I know in my personal experience, a friend will call as they're entering the subdivision. I won't go look out the window for them pulling up immediately, but within a minute or 2 I will go look to see if they're there. I'm not saying that is how it happened, but it is a possibility. From her statements, I have concern about what she actually saw from the standpoint of her saying she changed windows she was looking out of and went to get her phone. When these things occurred could determine what she could or couldn't have seen.

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?"

The last quote does draw issue with her as I said above. IMHO.

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.

I honestly don't know how one draws a conclusion that if one person is lying they are all lying. That isn't logical. She could very well simply want to be in the limelight and is regurgitating what she has heard. I don't know. But that doesn't make the others wrong or lying. Time will ultimately tell how accurate these versions are. As far as how to believe a word out of her mouth, maybe because we haven't actually sat down and interviewed her. Interviews are not meant to get the whole story out of a person. They are meant to get sound bites. I anticipate that LE actually followed up with her and asked her, when you say "They", who are you referring to and have a much clearer understanding of her version of events.

By the way Foxfire, I am not directing this post at you, just used your post as a place to chime in.[/QUOTE]

 

[reedus23]

"They" being the police force perhaps - of which OW was a part? I really don't see why this is some sort of smoking gun saying she didn't witness the shooting.

It's not. I would bet McCulloch would tell you the same. The obstructions to her vision are another story.

 

[reedus23]

I consider the possibility of poor grammar. Seems some though (not you of course) refuse to consider that she assumed the two cops in her video were both involved in the shooting she didn't, hence "they" instead of "him". Her story certainly evolved pretty quickly once she got down to the crowd. And we know FOR A FACT that she heard Johnson's story from someone before her first interview.

I'm sure LE sorted out her statement. We'll find out in time.

 

[tlcya]

Nothing wrong with protest if you are clear about what you are protesting against. It seems as if these protests are geared to protest against the fact that Officer Wilson has not been charged, tried and convicted without benefit of due process that is supposed to be afforded to every American under the judicial system and that is IMO what is wrong with these protests.

I could see if this shooting were not being investigated. I could see if the feds had not come in to do their own independent investigation. I could see if McCullough had refused to take the case to the grand jury. BUT NONE of those things has occurred.

So what exactly is being protested at this point save we haven't gotten what we want which is the immediate incarceration or death of Officer Wilson?

 

[reedus23]

I don't think OW was trying to hit the assailant in the arm, doing such would cause MORE stray bullets and is just not a good practice legally or training wise.

I think OW was shooting to the left because he just had his face/eye bashed and couldn't aim properly.

Or he's just a bad shot??? Just saying. Possibility, not knowing his expertise with a gun.

 

[tlcya]

:waitasec:

Don't officers have to qualify with their weapons every so often? All the ones I know do. I always thought proficiency with your firearm was a necessary requirement for law enforcement.

 

[jggordo]

Does anyone have a feel for how long teh GJ will deliberate and will there be an announcement if they conclude deliberations and come back with a decision that charges are not warranted? I really want to know when this BS will either end or begin or both if you follow.

tlcya, I always appreciate your posts. Probably not the popular opinion, but I believe there will be a full trial one way or the other. If the GJ does not return a "true bill" it will be alleged that the Prosecutor did not do his best, present the right evidence or prejudice involved. The DOJ has promised publicly and to the family that "justice will be done". Should the County Prosecutor not bring charges, I believe a special Prosecutor will be appointed and trial commence. This has become such a political and racial event that have been temporarily defused, seems nobody really want to put the brakes on.

I believe without a full trial to lay out all the evidence, the witnesses, the DNA, forensics, lies and truths that this will always be a sore with a scab just waiting to be scratched off. And frankly I hope so. I think it is the only way forward. There are too many violent people that will use an agenda otherwise. I believe in the Justice system.

JMO

 

[reedus23]

I don't like that the officer can turn on/off at will, that will be a problem, imo.

Big concern there. There needs to be a policy in place to reprimand an officer for turning it off anytime he is engaging the community. There needs to be a presumption of unlawful actions anytime something goes wrong and he doesn't have it turned on. Bottom line is there has to be consequences for not having them on or else they will simply be turned off.

 

[DeDee]

Ryan J. ReillyVerified account
‏@ryanjreilly Happened upon Barack Obama Elementary about 15 minutes away from site of #Ferguson protests

 

[katydid23]

Or he's just a bad shot??? Just saying. Possibility, not knowing his expertise with a gun.

If he was a bad shot he would be taken off of patrol duty until he improved. My son carries a weapon for a federal job, and he has to routinely pass a rigorous shooting test, which involves shooting at dummys while he's running and hiding behind things. he says if someone fails the test they get desk duty.

 

[popsicle]

He kept repeating about once a minute that MB was left uncovered in the street for 4 1/2 hours. Someone should clue him in.

Because that is what the 4 1/2 min hwy blockade was about jmo

 

[katydid23]

yep. They have routine proficiency exams. Must pass them to stay on patrol duty. Not sure about Ferguson though.

 

[reedus23]

Why are they racists because they support OW? I'm not a racist, and I support him. If the situation were reversed and it was a black cop who shot a white teen after the white teen assaulted the black officer and IMO the white teen was shot and killed while charging the black officer, I would support the black officer.

Please read all of the comments around that one. I absolutely said that there are a huge majority of OW supporters who are civilized and simply believe the facts support OW. To deny there aren't a pocket of OW supporters who are racist is as silly as saying the same isn't true of some MB supporters. In fact, even in the post you quoted, I said the racists really aren't even OW supporters.

 

[Linda7NJ]

:waitasec:

Don't officers have to qualify with their weapons every so often? All the ones I know do. I always thought proficiency with your firearm was a necessary requirement for law enforcement.

Here it's once-twice a year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tlcya]

tlcya, I always appreciate your posts. Probably not the popular opinion, but I believe there will be a full trial one way or the other. If the GJ does not return a "true bill" it will be alleged that the Prosecutor did not do his best, present the right evidence or prejudice involved. The DOJ has promised publicly and to the family that "justice will be done". Should the County Prosecutor not bring charges, I believe a special Prosecutor will be appointed and trial commence. This has become such a political and racial event that have been temporarily defused, seems nobody really want to put the brakes on.

I believe without a full trial to lay out all the evidence, the witnesses, the DNA, forensics, lies and truths that this will always be a sore with a scab just waiting to be scratched off. And frankly I hope so. I think it is the only way forward. There are too many violent people that will use an agenda otherwise. I believe in the Justice system.

JMO

Should you be correct I am close enough and pissed off enough that I may have to do my own protesting. Why do I have to follow the rules and put up with the status quo and others get to circumvent the system til given what they want? It is very very upsetting to me and may be enough for me and others like me to take to the streets. Not that anyone will notice since I won't be burning or looting my neighborhood businesses.

 

[branwynbreeze]

This is so ridiculous. And they are going to piss off the people they claim to want support from. This is so stupid.

It's a good way to alienate on the fence supporters and fuel more racial tension. They put themselves, LE and public in a potentially dangerous situation-accidents, fights, protester injury. The absolute worst thing is this is done with demands attached that are unlawful. Where are other noted civil rights leaders now, why are they condoning this behavior? Crickets. I am greatly disappointed.

 

[Linda7NJ]

tlcya, I always appreciate your posts. Probably not the popular opinion, but I believe there will be a full trial one way or the other. If the GJ does not return a "true bill" it will be alleged that the Prosecutor did not do his best, present the right evidence or prejudice involved. The DOJ has promised publicly and to the family that "justice will be done". Should the County Prosecutor not bring charges, I believe a special Prosecutor will be appointed and trial commence. This has become such a political and racial event that have been temporarily defused, seems nobody really want to put the brakes on.

I believe without a full trial to lay out all the evidence, the witnesses, the DNA, forensics, lies and truths that this will always be a sore with a scab just waiting to be scratched off. And frankly I hope so. I think it is the only way forward. There are too many violent people that will use an agenda otherwise. I believe in the Justice system.

JMO

I haven't truly believed in the justice system since OJ Simpson walked.

I respect it.

IMO If there is a trial, the justice system failed...again. IMO




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk