Michael Brown shooting II

[Skeptical Greg]

....
In other words, the chief's claim that they were flooded with requests for the tape was a lie. Yet another reason to give his version of events no credibility.

So if any of the witnesses are caught in a lie, nothing they say is credible?

Is that how we go forward?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For reference, Goldie Taylor reported this the day the video was released - namely, that nobody had specifically filed a request for it to be released to the public. Other reporters have since found the same (for example here - granted, Huffington Post is not, IMO, the best of sources, but I think it's reasonable to point to here.).

In other words, the chief's claim that they were flooded with requests for the tape was a lie. Yet another reason to give his version of events no credibility.

The Blot cited in the HuffPo article:

Last month, TheBlot Magazine requested a copy of all open records requests made by members of the public — including journalists and news organizations — that specifically sought the release of the convenience store surveillance video. The logs, which were itself obtained under Missouri’s open records law, show only one journalist — Joel Currier with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch — broadly requested any and all multimedia evidence “leading up to” Brown’s death on Aug. 9.

The records TheBlot received from the request can be viewed here: City of Ferguson FOIA Request Log

Even if one argues, of all the records requested that is the only one they were able to release, that is not what the chief said when explaining why he released that video.

But then you get back to my earlier argument, either the theft had nothing to do with the case, or it should have been considered the same as the rest of the evidence: part of any ongoing case.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The lack of a report by Wilson

I had been wondering how the media even knew about the video, that alone suggested some source leaked the information to a reporter. Police know full well such unofficial information releases are against department policy. But now it turns out that may not have had anything to do with the video release.

It shouldn't be any surprise that the Ferguson police are going to circle the wagons to protect Wilson. The big question is going to be, how far does that wagon circling go?

I had thought the reports Wilson wasn't asked to detail what happened must be a mistake and surely those details are just in a different report that wasn't released. Then it turns out there's even been a report that the police union tells officers not to say anything when this kind of case occurs.

It's a mixed bag. Any other person accused of a crime is advised not to talk and to get a lawyer. Wilson should have the same rights.

But on the other hand, this was a police killing and the public (not just the victim's significant others) deserves a full accounting of an event where an officer kills someone in the line of duty.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It appears the story comes entirely from here:
http://theblot.com/exclusive-fergus...about-michael-brown-surveillance-tape-7725621

It's a very strange article. They assert (bolding mine):
However, a review of open records requests sent to the Ferguson Police Department found that no news organization, reporter or individual specifically sought the release of the surveillance tape before police distributed it on Aug. 15.

Yet they link to the log sent to them by ferguson, And they were flooded for requests for all information regarding Michael brown.

I guess they are making the argument that when jackson said:
“We got a lot of Freedom of Information requests for this tape, and at some point it was just determined we had to release it. We didn’t have good cause, any other reason not to release it under FOI.”
it was a lie because it wasn't for this tape specifically.

That seems to me to be some serious hair splitting. In context “We got a lot of Freedom of Information requests for this tape" is true, if "this tape" falls into the category of documents required to be released under Missouri sunshine law 610.203

If someone can point to the law that exempts the cigar robbery recording from being released, that would answer the question of whether it should have been released or not.

I added some bolding

From theBlot:

The logs, which were itself obtained under Missouri’s open records law, show only one journalist — Joel Currier with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch — broadly requested any and all multimedia evidence “leading up to” Brown’s death on Aug. 9.

That is actually true.

From the log: Aug 11 - One request from ABC news reporter for everything related to the shooting. "records associated with"

Aug 12 - "everything leading up to" requested by Joel Currier.

Aug 12 - the ACLU requests a copy of "the incident report"

Aug 14 - Judicial Watch requests "the log entries or related records"

Aug 14 - a request for financial information, money spent on cameras.

Aug 14 - Bar Association officer requests specific information, and other than "immediately before" nothing requests incidents prior to the encounter.

Aug 14 - HuffPo requests arrest and incident reports related to their own reporters being detained the night before while covering the protests.

Aug 15 - request for past lawsuits filed against the Ferguson PD


Some might find it nit picking to say the police chief's claim was not true that they were flooded with requests for the video. But I think it's much more of a stretch to believe that the chief was honest when he claimed these requests for information were specifically, a flood of requests for the market video.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So if any of the witnesses are caught in a lie, nothing they say is credible?

Is that how we go forward?

If the police chief claims there was a flood of requests for the store video and the FOI log shows there was no such thing, it is evidence that the chief released the video under suspicious motivation.

No one said more than that.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

<SNIP>

Some might find it nit picking to say the police chief's claim was not true that they were flooded with requests for the video. But I think it's much more of a stretch to believe that the chief was honest when he claimed these requests for information were specifically, a flood of requests for the market video.

I would guess the FOI information was simply told to the Chief, just like Wilsons account. And it was not some kind of deliberate lie or an attempt to mislead, but simply the chief repeating what he believed to be the case.

It seems rather silly to lie about something you are required to keep logs of, and can be rather easily checked, doesn't it ?

Or maybe it was a deliberate lie the FPD thought was worth the taking a hit on for the negative PR on brown.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

New story regarding more witness statements. More witnesses that were not on the "grassy knoll"

It seems like in this story there were at most 3 shots at the car and a fleeing brown.

That brown was facing the officer, 10 feet away, and advancing when the 10 shot recording was heard.

At least, I can't make hos story work any other way than that with the recording.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_14a3e5f8-6c6a-5deb-92fe-87fcee622c29.html

But there were two outsiders who happened to be working outside at the apartment complex on Aug. 9 — two men from a company in Jefferson County — who heard a single gunshot, looked up from their work and witnessed the shooting.
...
His account largely matches those who reported that Wilson chased Brown on foot away from the car after the initial gunshot and fired at least one more shot in the direction of Brown as he was fleeing; that Brown stopped, turned around and put his hands up; and that the officer killed Brown in a barrage of gunfire.
...
Then he saw Brown running away from a police car. Wilson trailed about 10 to 15 feet behind, gun in hand. About 90 feet away from the car, the worker said, Wilson fired another shot at Brown, whose back was turned.

The worker said Brown stumbled and then stopped, put his hands up, turned around and said, “OK, OK, OK, OK, OK.” He said he told investigators from the St. Louis County police and the FBI that because of the stumble, it seemed to him that Brown had been wounded.
Wilson, gun drawn, also stopped about 10 feet in front of Brown, the worker said.

Then Brown moved, the worker said. “He’s kind of walking back toward the cop.” He said Brown’s hands were still up.

Wilson began backing up as he fired, the worker said.

After the third shot, Brown’s hands started going down, and he moved about 25 feet toward Wilson, who kept backing away and firing. The worker said he could not tell from where he watched — about 50 feet away — if Brown’s motion toward Wilson after the shots was “a stumble to the ground” or “OK, I’m going to get you, you’re already shooting me.”

 

[Skeptical Greg]

If the police chief claims there was a flood of requests for the store video and the FOI log shows there was no such thing, it is evidence that the chief released the video under suspicious motivation.

No one said more than that.

Yes someone did .. Mumbles said since the chief lied about the release of the video, he has no credibility...

So if that is the criteria we want to go by, it should apply to everyone..

 

[johnny karate]

New story regarding more witness statements. More witnesses that were not on the "grassy knoll"

It seems like in this story there were at most 3 shots at the car and a fleeing brown.

That brown was facing the officer, 10 feet away, and advancing when the 10 shot recording was heard.

At least, I can't make hos story work any other way than that with the recording.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_14a3e5f8-6c6a-5deb-92fe-87fcee622c29.html

But there were two outsiders who happened to be working outside at the apartment complex on Aug. 9 — two men from a company in Jefferson County — who heard a single gunshot, looked up from their work and witnessed the shooting.
...
His account largely matches those who reported that Wilson chased Brown on foot away from the car after the initial gunshot and fired at least one more shot in the direction of Brown as he was fleeing; that Brown stopped, turned around and put his hands up; and that the officer killed Brown in a barrage of gunfire.
...
Then he saw Brown running away from a police car. Wilson trailed about 10 to 15 feet behind, gun in hand. About 90 feet away from the car, the worker said, Wilson fired another shot at Brown, whose back was turned.

The worker said Brown stumbled and then stopped, put his hands up, turned around and said, “OK, OK, OK, OK, OK.” He said he told investigators from the St. Louis County police and the FBI that because of the stumble, it seemed to him that Brown had been wounded.
Wilson, gun drawn, also stopped about 10 feet in front of Brown, the worker said.

Then Brown moved, the worker said. “He’s kind of walking back toward the cop.” He said Brown’s hands were still up.

Wilson began backing up as he fired, the worker said.

After the third shot, Brown’s hands started going down, and he moved about 25 feet toward Wilson, who kept backing away and firing. The worker said he could not tell from where he watched — about 50 feet away — if Brown’s motion toward Wilson after the shots was “a stumble to the ground” or “OK, I’m going to get you, you’re already shooting me.”

If we're going to take the body of witness accounts (made public so far) at face value, I don't know how they can be viewed as anything other than damning for Officer Wilson.

The window of opportunity for Brown to have been posing a legitimate threat to Wilson when Wilson shot him to death seems to be rapidly closing, and requiring more and more belief in the improbable.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

New story regarding more witness statements. More witnesses that were not on the "grassy knoll"

It seems like in this story there were at most 3 shots at the car and a fleeing brown.

That brown was facing the officer, 10 feet away, and advancing when the 10 shot recording was heard.

At least, I can't make hos story work any other way than that with the recording.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_14a3e5f8-6c6a-5deb-92fe-87fcee622c29.html....

You can't make his story fit any other way? Does that mean this one witness trumps all others in your opinion?


The following comments are not in reference to exactly what happened, but rather I'd like to point out the implications in the news report:

Almost all of the witnesses who shared these accounts with media either knew Brown; lived at or near the Canfield Green apartments, where the shooting occurred; or were visiting friends or relatives there.

So they must be lying.

that Brown stopped, turned around and put his hands up; and that the officer killed Brown in a barrage of gunfire.

But his account does little to clarify perhaps the most critical moment of the confrontation,

The witness' account matches the other witnesses but that means it does little to clarify what happened?

So are they suggesting because it incriminated Wilson, it's again another witness we can just dismiss?


Now, back to the witness accounts:

Among people who have spoken to the media, there hasn’t been a clear consensus on what happened after Brown turned around.

The differences are not that major. But they list the accounts pointing out the differences, ending with:

No witness has ever publicly claimed that Brown charged at Wilson. The worker interviewed by the Post-Dispatch disputed claims by Wilson’s defenders that Brown was running full speed at the officer.

“I don’t know if he was going after him or if he was falling down to die,” he said. “It wasn’t a bull rush.”

Stumbling forward for 25 feet seems unrealistic especially since the witness' distance estimates are all over the place. Just a few seconds before Wilson was only 10 feet from Brown and backing up, then he says Brown moves 25 feet toward Wilson as Wilson is backing up.

In order for that to make sense Wilson would have to practically be fleeing from Brown.


I think these are yet two more witnesses that reinforce the other witness accounts. Brown was not aggressively charging Wilson, even if Brown was moving forward. Wilson negligently over-reacted with the last 4 shots.

 

[Mumbles]

Yes someone did .. Mumbles said since the chief lied about the release of the video, he has no credibility...

So if that is the criteria we want to go by, it should apply to everyone..

Um...yes.

If you can show that any witness lied about the shooting, then they are discredited.

But I see what you're up to. Saying that Brown was shot because Wilson shot at his back, and Brown jerked like he was shot, is not a lie, as far as we know. The Ferguson police chief *knew* that there were no FOIA requests for the store video, and released it anyway, stating that he had to do so because he was flooded with FOIA requests. That level of dishonesty cannot be given for any witness to the shooting.

And there's also this - I'm simply stating that the police chief is not to be trusted. Really, we already knew that, since he's been caught in lies before. I'm not stating that Wilson is a murderer, but I *am* stating that the chief's recounting of events is worthless, that Wilson himself deserves a fair chance to say what happened, and that all evidence should be examined. But as of right now, this simply reinforces the fact that the chief's recounting of what Wilson did should e ignored.

 

[Mumbles]

I had been wondering how the media even knew about the video, that alone suggested some source leaked the information to a reporter. Police know full well such unofficial information releases are against department policy. But now it turns out that may not have had anything to do with the video release.

It shouldn't be any surprise that the Ferguson police are going to circle the wagons to protect Wilson. The big question is going to be, how far does that wagon circling go?

I had thought the reports Wilson wasn't asked to detail what happened must be a mistake and surely those details are just in a different report that wasn't released. Then it turns out there's even been a report that the police union tells officers not to say anything when this kind of case occurs.

It's a mixed bag. Any other person accused of a crime is advised not to talk and to get a lawyer. Wilson should have the same rights.

But on the other hand, this was a police killing and the public (not just the victim's significant others) deserves a full accounting of an event where an officer kills someone in the line of duty.

Yep.

I can understand the average citizen not immediately speaking to police about a shooting, unless, say, the person they shot were breaking into their house.

But it seems to me that a cop, who lawfully shot and killed a person in the line of duty, would be eager to say "No, this is what happened, and that's why I had no choice but to shoot." And I think you'd want to get that story down as soon as possible, in order to boost your credibility. my problem here is that the police have done the exact opposite - hiding the shooter's identity, handing out irrelevant details about the guy who got shot, attacking protestors and the reporters on the scene.

 

[Mumbles]

The Blot cited in the HuffPo article:


The records TheBlot received from the request can be viewed here: City of Ferguson FOIA Request Log

Even if one argues, of all the records requested that is the only one they were able to release, that is not what the chief said when explaining why he released that video.

But then you get back to my earlier argument, either the theft had nothing to do with the case, or it should have been considered the same as the rest of the evidence: part of any ongoing case.

Exactly. The police chief openly claimed that he released this footage because of all of the media requests for it. He also said that this video was not related to the shooting. And we also know that no reporter asked for this video.

It's time for him to go.

 

[theprestige]

Yep.

I can understand the average citizen not immediately speaking to police about a shooting, unless, say, the person they shot were breaking into their house.

But it seems to me that a cop, who lawfully shot and killed a person in the line of duty, would be eager to say "No, this is what happened, and that's why I had no choice but to shoot." And I think you'd want to get that story down as soon as possible, in order to boost your credibility. my problem here is that the police have done the exact opposite - hiding the shooter's identity, handing out irrelevant details about the guy who got shot, attacking protestors and the reporters on the scene.

First, you seem to be conflating the actions of Wilson with the actions of the FPD. This makes it difficult to understand who or what you are criticizing, or what reasonable conclusion you are trying to draw.

Second, you seem to have an expectation that Wilson, having just killed a man, should pivot to a PR strategy that satisfies your own presumption of what a good explanation looks like.

On these two points, your argument seems unreasonable

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If we're going to take the body of witness accounts (made public so far) at face value, I don't know how they can be viewed as anything other than damning for Officer Wilson.

The window of opportunity for Brown to have been posing a legitimate threat to Wilson when Wilson shot him to death seems to be rapidly closing, and requiring more and more belief in the improbable.

I was thinking that as more witnesses appear, it seems less likely to me that the GJ will return a true bill.

Then Brown moved, the worker said. “He’s kind of walking back toward the cop.” He said Brown’s hands were still up.

Wilson began backing up as he fired, the worker said.

I believe that Wilson will get a lot of leeway in his determination of what was or was not a threat. Wilson backing up as brown continues to advance is going to be big.

I don't believe it will need to be anything like a "bull-rush". Or even a rush for that matter.

Advancing on a officer, with his gun drawn, who has already fired at you, and is retreating ... that is going to be perceived as a threat.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You can't make his story fit any other way? Does that mean this one witness trumps all others in your opinion?

No, he does not trump all others. But I believe we all weigh the testimony of each witness on our "internal scales" using different criteria; on my scales those who didn't know brown gain more credibility. They may lose credibility as well if their story is not internally consistent, or similar. It's not exactly a scientific process.

The following comments are not in reference to exactly what happened, but rather I'd like to point out the implications in the news report:
So they must be lying.

I thought the implication was simply those without community ties or a history with the 'victim' may be more objective. I don't find that to be outlandish or a stretch.

The witness' account matches the other witnesses but that means it does little to clarify what happened?

So are they suggesting because it incriminated Wilson, it's again another witness we can just dismiss?

No.

Now, back to the witness accounts:

The differences are not that major. But they list the accounts pointing out the differences, ending with:

Stumbling forward for 25 feet seems unrealistic especially since the witness' distance estimates are all over the place. Just a few seconds before Wilson was only 10 feet from Brown and backing up, then he says Brown moves 25 feet toward Wilson as Wilson is backing up.

In order for that to make sense Wilson would have to practically be fleeing from Brown.

So are you then saying this account is quite different from others ? Or this part of his description cannot possibly be correct ? I'm not sure I understand.

I think these are yet two more witnesses that reinforce the other witness accounts. Brown was not aggressively charging Wilson, even if Brown was moving forward. Wilson negligently over-reacted with the last 4 shots.

My bold. See how the story has evolved from shot in the back, executed as he lay on the ground, shot as falling ... to brown is advancing on wilson while wilson is retreating.

I think there is too much subjectivity in determining what constitutes a threat, and wilson will be given a lot of latitude by the GJ.

 

[plague311]

Um...yes.

If you can show that any witness lied about the shooting, then they are discredited.

Wasn't Dorian caught lying? In fact, weren't there charges pressed because he lied, specifically, to the police.

But I see what you're up to. Saying that Brown was shot because Wilson shot at his back, and Brown jerked like he was shot, is not a lie, as far as we know. The Ferguson police chief *knew* that there were no FOIA requests for the store video, and released it anyway, stating that he had to do so because he was flooded with FOIA requests. That level of dishonesty cannot be given for any witness to the shooting.

I thought we had confirmed that there actually was an FOIA request from a reporter. So there was at least 1, probably not a flood, but at best that's a hyperbole. We don't know how many people stated to him, or the police department, that they were going to submit an FOIA request. Lots of reports asking a lot of questions and saying a lot of stuff immediately after the incident.

And there's also this - I'm simply stating that the police chief is not to be trusted.

Yet you appear to have no issues with other people's statements no matter what their past is, I find that a bit suspect.

Really, we already knew that, since he's been caught in lies before.

At least about something as mundane as how many FOIA requests had been submitted.

I'm not stating that Wilson is a murderer, but I *am* stating that the chief's recounting of events is worthless, that Wilson himself deserves a fair chance to say what happened, and that all evidence should be examined. But as of right now, this simply reinforces the fact that the chief's recounting of what Wilson did should e ignored.

So we should probably also throw out Dorian's as well. He's been caught lying.

 

[johnny karate]

I was thinking that as more witnesses appear, it seems less likely to me that the GJ will return a true bill.

Then Brown moved, the worker said. “He’s kind of walking back toward the cop.” He said Brown’s hands were still up.

Wilson began backing up as he fired, the worker said.

I believe that Wilson will get a lot of leeway in his determination of what was or was not a threat. Wilson backing up as brown continues to advance is going to be big.

I don't believe it will need to be anything like a "bull-rush". Or even a rush for that matter.

Advancing on a officer, with his gun drawn, who has already fired at you, and is retreating ... that is going to be perceived as a threat.

I don't know specifically what the law allows, but I don't see how an armed person walking towards you with his hands up poses a threat that requires the use of deadly force.

And again, now that the ridiculous "bull-rush" meme appears to be dead, the thread by which hangs the supposed threat Brown posed grows ever more slender.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, he does not trump all others. But I believe we all weigh the testimony of each witness on our "internal scales" using different criteria; on my scales those who didn't know brown gain more credibility. They may lose credibility as well if their story is not internally consistent, or similar. It's not exactly a scientific process.

And yet you even dismissed the other worker who said Wilson shot Brown who had his hands up.

And don't forget Tiffany Mitchell didn't live there. The workers are just as tied to the community as Mitchell is. They probably have a relationship with the owners of the property they were working on.

Bottom line, the criteria for determining which witness accounts are more reliable isn't about trying to find the only one that had more than 6 degrees of separation from the victim.

Credibility comes from the witness statements combined with the physical evidence.

So are you then saying this account is quite different from others ? Or this part of his description cannot possibly be correct ? I'm not sure I understand.

I'm only saying his assessment of the number of feet involved are wildly inconsistent with all the other evidence. I think we can say he saw Brown moving forward, I don't think Brown moving 25 feet toward Wilson is remotely credible.

My bold. See how the story has evolved from shot in the back, executed as he lay on the ground, shot as falling ... to brown is advancing on wilson while wilson is retreating.

I think there is too much subjectivity in determining what constitutes a threat, and wilson will be given a lot of latitude by the GJ.

Shot from the back vs shot in the back, I don't find this particular issue to matter one iota.

No one claims Wilson didn't fire at Brown fleeing. So why does it matter if any witness thought they saw a bullet hit, or a body movement that looked like Brown was hit or whether one bullet did or did not hit from behind? None of those three scenarios matters.

I don't see anyone in this thread or even in the news media giving much credibility to executed as he lay on the ground. Why are you keeping that accusation alive when no one else is?


So you have multiple witnesses saying Brown was giving up, doubled over, or going down when he was shot. You have two witnesses that said Brown was moving toward the officer during the last 4 shots.

No witness has claimed Brown was rushing at Wilson, let alone running toward Wilson with his head down (aka bull-rushing).

You have the kill shot that is at an angle with Brown's head down.

And you have a 3 second gap in shot volleys.

If Brown were moving toward Wilson it would have had to have been in a falling motion when you factor in the timing of the last 4 shots.

If Wilson thought Brown falling toward him was an aggressive move, that is, at a minimum, negligence IMO.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ec6ffe-339b-11e4-8f02-03c644b2d7d0_story.html

In atypical approach, grand jury in Ferguson shooting receives full measure of case

Sounds like they don't want anyone to be able to complain about the GJ decision.

I believe it will be to indict Wilson.