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

[popsicle]

Do we need another thread?
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na...l?hootPostID=797405629147a63d3bed284a27502404

 

[Linda7NJ]

I saw this as well on a blog, as always the comment section provides a wealth of info. CNN definitely messed with that video.

IMO they didn't make a mistake, it was a deliberate manipulation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Do we need another thread?
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na...l?hootPostID=797405629147a63d3bed284a27502404

Why are people so stupid?

Never run from law enforcement.
They have guns.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CHERIE.T]

even DJ says it's MB & himself on the video

Had to giggle when I read this...how can people question what
DJ says specifically about him and MB being on the video.

 

[reedus23]

I don't know if this has already been linked before but it seems to be an extended version of what CNN has been constantly looping over and over again concerning the construction workers.

Look closely at the man on the far left at the very start of the video. 0:06 mark. He is motioning to the construction worker and seems to have his hands up in the air as if trying to say 'What happened?' And then the guy in the red shirt throws his hands up as if to say he doesn't know what happened.

So imo, CNN staged this video to appear one way and conveniently omitted the very first part that would explain why the construction workers hands are in the air.

Now I am beginning to trust none of these witnesses who seem to be seeking 15 minutes of fame.

And notice the demeanor of the construction workers. They really seem totally disinterested in what just happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnhB-_cIxKM

My take is that the lengths gone to explain away some witnesses almost reminds me of those who claim it wasn't MB in the robbery video. It is what it is in all instances.

 

[al66pine]

Grrrr... Lost my reply .... Dorian makes some dramatic statements initially
regarding the people in the car. http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/236754541

sbm bbm

Seems DJ exercised some deliberate or inadvertent license in his statements, imo. From above link.

"Then, my friend stopped running because he felt the second shot."
Does DJ know MB felt the second shot or is that his guess? Could something else have caused MB to stop?

"The first one I felt like he was in shock. The second shot hit him and he felt it."
Does DJ know MB felt the second shot, or is that his guess?

"His hand immediately went in the air and he turned around to the officer, face-to-face.
He started to tell the officer that he is unarmed and that you should stop shooting me."
Does DJ know what MB started to tell the officer, or is that his guess?
Is it possible MB started to tell the officer, 'Go f--- yourself, you f------ pig?' or equivalent?

"Before he can get his second sentence out, the officer shot several more shots
into head and his chest area. He fell dramatically in the fettle position...."
Is DJ's observation about several shots in MB's chest accurate?

Re DJ hiding behind a car and begging occupants to allow him in the car. ".... They don’t know why the officer was shooting at us."
Did OW shoot at MB only or 'both of them''? What does/will forensics show?
---------------------------------------------------------------

"It was around 1:40, 2 oclock (p.m.)." How accurate is/was DJ's sense of time? Was it distorted? From what? Drugs or ?
Did he deliberately misstate the time, which LE reports show as ~12:00noon?

"I felt like the officer is in shock because we were running for two minutes or not that much..."
Did MB & DJ run for two minutes? If they did, wouldn't they have been much further away from where they ended up?
Did MB & DJ run for one minute? For one half minute?
If they did, wouldn't they have been further away from where they ended up?
How accurate is/was DJ's sense of time? Was it distorted? From what? Drugs or ?
Or did he deliberately misstate the time?


I could go on slicing and dicing, but I think his most telling misstatements were in Jefferson City a few yrs prior,
when he gave LE a false name (IIRC, false DoB and/or SocSec #).
Is any lie baser or more deceptive than misrepresenting one's own name & ID?

Does it matter whether DJ's statements were inadvertently or deliberately inaccurate?
Not credible, imo.
JM2cts.

 

[CuriousGuy]

Do we need another thread?
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na...l?hootPostID=797405629147a63d3bed284a27502404

I fully expect a civil rights violation investigation by the honorable AG Holder post haste /

 

[reedus23]

A clear majority of the witnesses have said that MB turned around and starting moving back toward OW. The latest two witnesses say that OW was backing up while being advanced upon by MB.

A very hard thing to do is to listen to what the witnesses say they actually saw, not how they interpreted what they saw.

And thus the reason an indictment should be handed down and a jury given the responsibility of interpreting what they describe.

 

[CHERIE.T]

Why are people so stupid?

Never run from law enforcement.
They have guns.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's so simple.

 

[SStarr33]

And while you're at it, google *Brown family attorney Benjamin Crump admits his desperation*

Looks like the person (KS) who took the video of the construction workers is posting in that thread.

 

[Linda7NJ]

It's so simple.

IKR?

I honestly believe if an officer of the law has to chase a person down...or get in any sort of physical altercation..anything that happens to that person is their own damn fault.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

And thus the reason an indictment should be handed down and a jury given the responsibility of interpreting what they describe.

Couldn't disagree more.

The GJ is more than capable in making that determination. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bettybaby00]

IMO they didn't make a mistake, it was a deliberate manipulation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope no mistake, just embracing that "pink elephant" we were discussing the other night.

 

[LambChop]

Getting close to nap time. This thread will close in about 10 minutes. illowfight:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ests-follow-shooting-of-teen-Michael-Brown-19

 

[bettybaby00]

I think it depends on what other witnesses there are and what they are saying. If there are others that back his story, then he may likely opt not to. If the only witnesses are the ones we've heard about, he almost has to testify if he wants to avoid an indictment because all of them give some variation of hands up and not being a threat.

2 questions it brings to mind for me though.

1. Do you think the prosecuting attorney is sharing with OW or his attorney what other witnesses are saying and what other evidence there is? In other words, does the requirement to share information/evidence being before an indictment?

2. GJ testimony is usually sealed but when a defendant testifies before a GJ, can those statements be used against him at a trial?

BBM

I have learned from various cases here, that until an arrest is made and charges are brought against a defendant, the investigators/DA do not have to share anything with them/their defense lawyer(s).

That's my understanding.

 

[reedus23]

The DA says he is going to give the GJ all of the evidence he has and let them decide whether they thought OW thought MB was a threat at the time. It doesn't really matter what others thought. This is all about OWs state of mind the day it happened and what he thought.

My comment wasn't directed to the DA necessarily. And it's about whether what he thought was reasonable. Just because he says so, doesn't make it so.

None of the witnesses I have seen seem to know much about what really transpired at OWs SUV where a shot was fired from inside. The initial event at the SUV between MB and OW is very important.

While it gives context, it's not the most important time frame in answering the ultimate question justification IMO.

I don't think any of the jurors are going to believe that OW had an almost 300 pound man by his neck trying to get him into his SUV. That defies common sense. OW surely wouldn't want a big giant on top of him as he is sitting in his SUV. So some may not be deemed credible by the jury if they think their story isn't logical. Others may not be believed if their story does not line up with Dr. Case's autopsy report or the crime scene evidence. Example: Shot in the back. If all the wounds were from the front then those who said he was shot in the back are wrong and if they are wrong about that then they can be wrong about other things.

We don't know what the testimony by any witness has been to the GJ. Can they disbelieve every single one of the witnesses that casts doubt on OW's actions? Possibly. It is also possible that they believe it all lines up with the forensics. We just don't know yet.

Also there is another plausible reason why MB may have had his hands up and out to his side. He very well could have been taunting OW and saying to him something like this 'whatcha gonna do about it, shoot me?' We already have seen how aggressive and bold MB seemed to be that day. 15 minutes earlier he was already seen bullying a man much smaller than he and OW is also a smaller man.

Solid closing argument for a defense counsel to make. But that presupposed an indictment.

If it is true that OW did learn about the strong armed robbery and that is why he backed up then the jury will see the video. It would show MBs demeanor and attitude less than 15 minutes before he and OW first saw each other. Even DJ says more or less even when OW told them to get on the sidewalk they thumbed their nose at him and kept walking. It shows, IMO, that neither one had any respect for law and order and thought they could do as they saw fit.

Until someone with the FPD comes out and explains it, I'm going by their own records that say at 7:00 pm that evening, they still hadn't found anyone matching meeting the suspects description, meaning OW didn't either.

Then factor in that some of the witnesses have said that MB came toward OW 20-25 feet and OW was backing up ...then that very well may convince the jury that MB was advancing toward OW and advancing is not surrendering by any means.

When coupled with the same person saying he wasn't rushing at OW, I don't know how far that will get. Advancing does not by definition exclude having surrendered. I think those things would play a much bigger role at a trial personally.

Plus it is reasonable to believe that other witnesses also saw what happened. Those who would rather talk with LE only rather than rush to the media to do interviews. Those who do not help MB and may fear for their safety if they come out for OW. The other witnesses very well could validate OWs statements he has made to all agencies.

Possibly. Very possibly in fact.

So the eye witnesses could be a wash. Imo, what will matter is OWs statements early on and him explaining his state of mind the day he came across MB and what led to the shooting. Plus, all the forensics found at the crime scene and Dr. Case's AR. If the crime scene is consistent with OWs statements then they should not indict him.

His statements are almost the most meaningless to me because he, of all people, has a reason to bend things one way or another. Who in their right mind would ever think that OW would actually say "No. I wasn't in fear of MB hurting/killing myself or others." Of course we all know what OW is going to say without him ever saying it. That is also why the statutes require a reasonableness element to those beliefs. And generally speaking, it is a jury's duty, at trial, to determine reasonableness IMO.

We already know by MO law that OW was allowed to use deadly force if OW knew the person trying to escape had committed a felony. That is the easiest proven imo. OWs ER records will be shown to the jury. And by law the injuries sustained to the officer doesn't have to be a certain level anyway. The mere assault of any kind is a felony.

Not an accurate statement of MO law. In addition to reasonably believing that MB had committed a felony, OW had to have a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to effect the arrest. That is why what happened at the vehicle, while important because it may tend to establish one of the two things needed for justification, it is not the most important time frame, namely what happened subsequently.

So if they go by the law and all the evidence presented to them they should not indict if the evidence presented lines up with OWs statements of events that day.

Again, like I said, unless they change their testimony to the GJ, we already know that not all of the evidence does not line up with OW's purported statement (which we haven't even heard yet by the way, so I'm not sure how people can even be so sure of what his statement actually is). There are what? 6? 7? 8? More? Witnesses that we are already aware of who tend to cut against OW.

BUT.........they aren't a sequestered jury and they don't live in a cave. No doubt they have heard the terrorist threats about what is going to happen if they do not indict. Imo, they have heard all the hostage like demands and constant terroristic threats. They already knew before becoming GJrs there had been looting, violent protests, and burning down a business.

And seen the police state and militarization of the force and of the abusive cops losing their jobs and of journalists being arrested and on and on. There are 2 sides to ever story. I will say, very flowery language though "terroristic" "hostage like". It's almost something I'd expect to hear from Crump.

So will they have the courage to do the right thing even if the right thing is to not indict OW? Or will they take the easy route and indict even if the evidence doesn't support it and just pass the problem off to someone else? I imagine it will be the latter. They sure don't want the town burned to the ground including their own homes.

And the other side of the story...will they have the courage to stand up to the police force and the vitriol that spills down on anyone that questions law enforcement and actually indict OW if the evidence supports it? Or will they take the easy way out and fail to indict even if the evidence supports it?

 

[CHERIE.T]

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.

cbm/bbm
That imhoo is what many MB supporters truly want.