MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #18

[al66pine]

It has been confirmed that the GJ is going to see the pix and videos of MB, during the robbery, 20 minutes before the incident.

I hope the GJ asks what OW was doing in the prior 20 minutes. And it would be nice if the parents of the infant would be questioned. They could be asked what the officers demeanor was. Was he aggressive, rude, or belligerent? Or was he caring and compassionate, in trying to help with the difficult situation of a tiny one with breathing problems.

Compare and contrast the demeanor of the two involved. Which one would be the aggressor?

BBM: Who please?

 

[katydid23]

NO. As I said, just jmo. Maybe he has testified, but usually they don't because it could affect their case if it does go to trial. It locks people in to a story. If I were OW, I would decline to testify for that reason. I have no idea if his written statements were made under oath. Also, I think that we may have heard a leak if he did testify. Just speculating, like everyone else!! JMO

There is a very tight and strict protocol for officer shootings. There are a few things we KNOW would have happened.

OW would have been immediately given a tox screening.

He would have been allowed to get an attorney first, but then very quickly, he would have been 'interviewed' on the record. It would have been videotaped. And anytime an officer is being interviewed by his superiors about a shooting , he is absolutely UNDER OATH.

They would have had internal affairs investigators involved. They would have asked him about every single moment, every single movement he made, every word he said and heard. Also, every bullet he fired would be discussed and accounted for.

If they had any forensics which did not corroborate with what he told them, he would have been arrested, imo.

 

[katydid23]

BBM: Who please?

Minutes before the incident, OW was sent on a call. The call was for him to go to the apt. of a 2 month old child who was having breathing problems.

I imagine that if OW had been drunk, or in a belligerent, and aggressive mood, these parents would have come forward to say so already. jmo

et:

I think it is important to contrast the differences between what the 2 of them were doing in the previous 20 minutes. What was their demeanor?

 

[branwynbreeze]

That is the truly sad part, they are following some who know the drill, but personal agenda demands continued chaos while pushing OW's arrest, a civil rights violation at this point. IMO those are doing harm to community and their race.

I am sooo disappointed in their attorneys who darn well know the game and instead of leading community to harmony through education repeatedly opens wounds so they cannot heal.

bbm sbm

I'm not jumping on ppl for not following RRoO right now, either.

Seems like some educational/informational meetings would be helpful in the community ATM
and some there are organizing meetings toward that end & ppl adjusting expectations/demands.
Like the ppl at city council meeting who wanted/demanded/expected the mayor to go out & arrest Officer DW.
Not gonna happen, no power to do so, no authority, no can do.

Hope that will lead some ppl to understand how to participate in municipal, state, federal gov't processes to influence outcomes.

 

[nothingnew]

I don't know about that- it seems he majority of witnesses did not see any reason why OW would perceive MB as a threat. That's concenring.
MOO.

That's sweet and all but there were ALREADY witnesses talking to police regarding mike's demeanor at the convenience store. Witnesses who haven't been flaunting their stuff on the news or you tube. I'm thinking their words about MB's final hour might hold some interest for any jury, grand or not.

 

[cady]

There is a very tight and strict protocol for officer shootings. There are a few things we KNOW would have happened.

OW would have been immediately given a tox screening.

He would have been allowed to get an attorney first, but then very quickly, he would have been 'interviewed' on the record. It would have been videotaped. And anytime an officer is being interviewed by his superiors about a shooting , he is absolutely UNDER OATH.

They would have had internal affairs investigators involved. They would have asked him about every single moment, every single movement he made, every word he said and heard. Also, every bullet he fired would be discussed and accounted for.

If they had any forensics which did not corroborate with what he told them, he would have been arrested, imo.

JMO OK, if that is exactly how it went down, then he IS locked into his story, despite the fact that forensic analysis had not been completed before he made his videotaped under oath statements. I wasn't there, so I do not know what transpired after he was taken away from the scene to the hospital. I would love to see a valid timeline, but that, among so many other facts is illusive. JMO

 

[nothingnew]

I've seen a number of quotes from MB friends/family about how his huge size intimidated most people at first, but when they got to know him they realized he was a gentle giant, a kid in a man's body, etc.. Unfortunately, MB gave OW less than a minute to know him before his aggression began.

Yes, they did. I remember Dorian talking about when he first heard MB speak he had a little kids voice and then DJ knew MB was just a big gentle kid in a gentle giant body. I remember the first time I heard Mike Tyson speak and that's what I was picturing when I was reading what dorian said.

 

[TheDuchess]

Do you know where you read that OW had declined to speak to the GJ. I hadn't heard that before. Although I know his attorney may advise against it.

Yes, they would be able to know what his statement is through the lead detective that has most likely testified before the GJ. They can also ask for a copy of his written statements he made to all LE agencies.

It's funny because OW is under no obligation to speak whatsoever, as he has the right to use his 5th amendment freedoms. It's funny that the MB camp keeps pressing him to make a statement, etc...it has nothing to do with wanting an explanation, but rather in the hopes that whatever he says can be twisted in such a way as to incriminate him. They want him the talk for the same reason they "only want an arrest" - CIVIL LAWSUIT.

 

[katydid23]

JMO OK, if that is exactly how it went down, then he IS locked into his story, despite the fact that forensic analysis had not been completed before he made his videotaped under oath statements. I wasn't there, so I do not know what transpired after he was taken away from the scene to the hospital. I would love to see a valid timeline, but that, among so many other facts is illusive. JMO

I just went to check, and Chief Jackson first told the press about what OW said about the incident, on aug 14th. So I think tht OW had to have made his statement already, or the chief would not have put that out publicly. So OW made his statement less than 5 days, probably closer to 3 or 4 days, after the shooting.

 

[branwynbreeze]

That's sweet and all but there were ALREADY witnesses talking to police regarding mike's demeanor at the convenience store. Witnesses who haven't been flaunting their stuff on the news or you tube. I'm thinking their words about MB's final hour might hold some interest for any jury, grand or not.

If you lived on that block and saw shooting differently than those seen on TV would you hit the TV circuit? I'd be living in fear if my version was closer to OW's.

 

[TheDuchess]

OK-It's Sunday so here comes another football reference. (It's funny how I see everyday things now in terms of how it relates to this case.)

But in discussing all of the eyewitness accounts, it is interesting to see how different people see different plays in a football game. Different people sitting in different spots of the stadium see the same play in different ways. Even different refs see the same play in very different ways. People at home watching on tv see if different as well. Of course, personal bias also has an effect on how people see a play, based upon what team you are rooting for.

When there is a questionable call, the NFL now uses video to try to determine what the correct call is, if there is a challenge. It takes quite some times for several refs and high level officials to review the play from a variety of different angles, until they can clearly see if the call was correct or should be reversed. Even then, the "call on the field" can only be overturned with incontrovertible evidence. So if even after the play is reviewed, they must see 100% proof that the original call was incorrect.

Well, in the MB case, the "call on the field" was made by OW. Now, while he is one of the participants, OW is also the "official" in this situation. He made a judgment call that was given to him to make based upon his training and his experience on the force. Not only is it his right to make that call, it is his DUTY to make that call. So we step in several "witnesses" to state what they saw and they feel the ruling on the field was incorrect. Now it's just time to run it up the chain for review, which is what they are doing with the grand jury. These are the rules in place at the "start of the game."

Green Bay can't get all angry and demand the ruling goes to their advantage. The Jets can't demand the officials get fired and that the higher level officials need to be replaced. While that may be a future pursuit, it will NOT change the outcome of the decision on the field. The game will continue on and one team will win and one team will lose.

But right now...the MB camp needs to realize and understand that the ruling on the field right now is AGAINST them. The rules are AGAINST them. The law is AGAINST them. It doesn't matter who the players are, if the rules are "fair" or even who made the rules. The rules and the rules. And the law is the law. So yes...OW, although in protective custody in fear of his life, remains a free man, until someone can prove otherwise.

BTW-I hate the Packers...just scored a TD to take the lead. :facepalm:

 

[nothingnew]

If you lived on that block and saw shooting differently than those seen on TV would you hit the TV circuit? I'd be living in fear if my version was closer to OW's.

No way, no how! My point though was the "witnesses" we have heard from have been a certain type. TV chasers. Maybe not all of them but a vast majority. That's why I am more interested in what the other people think.

 

[DebinGA]

StLCPD Chief Belmar gave the basics of OW's story the next day, Aug 10 - MB pushed OW back into his cruiser, punched him, struggled w/OW for control of his gun, one shot fired in the cruiser, MB ran, OW pursued, shots fired, MB dead, OW taken to hospital for exam.

 

[cady]

I just went to check, and Chief Jackson first told the press about what OW said about the incident, on aug 14th. So I think tht OW had to have made his statement already, or the chief would not have put that out publicly. So OW made his statement less than 5 days, probably closer to 3 or 4 days, after the shooting.

JMO OK. I find that to be strange. No immediate incident report, and statements made several days after the shooting....and before the world knew the officer's name, we were treated to strong-arm robbery video. I plainly see from the video that the perp was MB, but connecting that to the obstruction melee on Canfield MAY be a stretch. I suspect that the first officer on the scene TOLD OW that the dead guy was the strong arm robbery perp. That officer was the one looking for the perp and his buddy. I do hope that THAT officer has given under oath statements and that his testimony is available to the GJ. Also in the FPD initial report, it says 4 to 6 shots fired. We heard 10, if the glide video is correct. Curious, here. I do not know all the facts. I have no interest in participation by proxy in a wrongful conviction. I'm not convinced that race was an issue. I just want the truth of the incident to emerge. JMO

 

[DebinGA]

The store video and OW's name were both released at the same time on Aug. 15 by FPD Chief Jackson.

 

[cady]

The store video and OW's name were both released at the same time on Aug. 15 by FPD Chief Jackson.

YES video first, then OW's name JMO

 

[nothingnew]

JMO OK. I find that to be strange. No immediate incident report, and statements made several days after the shooting....and before the world knew the officer's name, we were treated to strong-arm robbery video. I plainly see from the video that the perp was MB, but connecting that to the obstruction melee on Canfield MAY be a stretch. I suspect that the first officer on the scene TOLD OW that the dead guy was the strong arm robbery perp. That officer was the one looking for the perp and his buddy. I do hope that THAT officer has given under oath statements and that his testimony is available to the GJ. Also in the FPD initial report, it says 4 to 6 shots fired. We heard 10, if the glide video is correct. Curious, here. I do not know all the facts. I have no interest in participation by proxy in a wrongful conviction. I'm not convinced that race was an issue. I just want the truth of the incident to emerge. JMO

Well you and I may plainly see that is MB in the video but his uncle says it is not. Don't know if that was the pastor uncle or a different one.

 

[DebinGA]

Video of Chief Jackson's presser on Aug. 15: http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/loca...brown-ferguson-officer-name-release/14097589/

... where he id'd OW by name and released still pics from the store video. I believe Jackson released the actual video that day too, but after the presser where OW was named.

 

[Linda7NJ]

http://www.kshb.com/news/region-mis...hospital-after-stunned-by-independence-police



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[katydid23]

If you lived on that block and saw shooting differently than those seen on TV would you hit the TV circuit? I'd be living in fear if my version was closer to OW's.

I agree. And I think those witnesses that corroborate the officers story, are probably the ones who were stopped right behind him in their cars. They would have had a great close up view of the initial bums rush and scuffle. And I think they would be ver nervous because they would be very visible to the others, as they were in their vehicles. just speculating. But I don't believe we have publicly heard from anyone who says they were sitting in their car, alongside the action. Not yet anyway.