Michael Brown shooting II

[Wolrab]

That would be Wilson's testimony to the Grand Jury. He was being attacked through his car window by Brown. He then pulled his gun, and pointed it at Brown, at which point Brown grabbed the gun - which is when he fired 2 shots, hitting Brown in the hand.

Wilson was quite clear on why he didn't wear a taser (it was uncomfortable), why he didn't use pepper spray (it could affect him as well as Brown, as Wilson was sitting in his car at the time) and why he thought it necessary to pull his gun (he was worried Brown would knock him unconscious or kill him).

You are right (see how easy that is?). Here is the relevant testimony from Wilson, page 214:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370518-grand-jury-volume-5.html

Brown was attacking Wilson at the time. You state, "reaching for Wilson's gun was the reasonable response from Brown, regardless of what happened before." The reasonable response is to stop attacking the cop and either run or submit. You don't make a play for a cops gun.

 

[Mumbles]

You are right (see how easy that is?). Here is the relevant testimony from Wilson, page 214:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370518-grand-jury-volume-5.html

Brown was attacking Wilson at the time. You state, "reaching for Wilson's gun was the reasonable response from Brown, regardless of what happened before." The reasonable response is to stop attacking the cop and either run or submit. You don't make a play for a cops gun.

The reasonable thing to do is never hit a cop in the first place - and really, never hit anyone, except in defense, or in mutual training. If you reach into a cop's car to attack him, as Wilson alleges Brown did, you're already completely unreasonable. But *if* you're going to do that, and be completely violent, then you may as well go for his gun if he pulls it on you at close range.

 

[Mumbles]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/unmasking-Ferguson-witness-40-496236

This I agree with: "Witness" 40 is clearly not a witness.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I looked it up. It is on page 1 of the police training manual: "No matter how hard it is to draw a sidearm while sitting in your vehicle, do it. Then make sure you point it all assbackwardy at the guy with all the leverage."

Really, where did you come up with that?

Regardless of the absurdity of such an action, that's exactly what Wilson had to do.

There are several possibilities here:

1. Brown lunged through the SUVs window in an attempt to grab Wilson's weapon, which is holstered on his right hip.
2. Wilson pulls his weapon in response to a physical attack by Brown, likely the shoving of the SUV's door.
3. Wilson pulls his weapon as he's attempting to get out of the SUV to confront Brown and Johnson, before any physical aggression by Brown.

There are more, I'm sure. In all possibilities, though, it's far more likely that Wilson himself unholstered his weapon while in his SUV and had enough control over it to point it in Brown's direction and pull the trigger once.

 

[Cylinder]

Yup, W40's narrative was pretty much off scale bizarre.

[Ed: Link is NSFW in that it contains photocopy image of a journal entry containing a racial epithet. The word has been edited by me in the quoted portion below.]

So W40's journal entry exhibit [NSFW] is pretty freaking bizarre.

Aug 9th - Saturday
8AM
Well Im gonna take my random drive to Florisant. Need to understand the Black race better so I stop calling Blacks ******* and start calling them People. Like dad always said you cant fear or hate an entire race cause of what one man did 40 years ago.​

Edited by LashL: 

Edited. Please see Rule 10.

The next entry describes the shooting pretty exactly tracking Wilson's narrative -- fight at the car with Brown as he aggressor, Brown charging back head down, etc...

The first entry just sounds like a shot at McCulloch but if this thing was a journal presumably it was written contemporaneously, thus before the writer would have any motive/knowledge, etc...

Was this W40's narrative all-along?

 

[Walter Ego]

Witness 40: Exposing A Fraud In Ferguson

To be fair, some of the pro-Brown witnesses may have offered dubious testimony though not as dubious as this.

The grand jury witness who testified that she saw Michael Brown pummel a cop before charging at him “like a football player, head down,” is a troubled, bipolar Missouri woman with a criminal past who has a history of making racist remarks and once insinuated herself into another high-profile St. Louis criminal case with claims that police eventually dismissed as a “complete fabrication.”

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/unmasking-Ferguson-witness-40-496236

 

[Gallstones]

Sure.

But let's be honest - this thread is about Darren Wilson's actions, not Mike Brown's, even though the thread title is "Michael Brown Shooting II". If Wilson had to shoot to protect his life...well, it's sad, but some people are placed in that situation. And I think people will agree that drawing a gun without firing it, at arms-length from an attacker, is not a good move - exactly because you can be disarmed and killed with your own weapon. That doesn't mean Wilson is a criminal or anything, it's just a bad move, the end.

This is how I always understood gun safety: First, you always back down from a fight if possible. Although, this is obviously not possible for a cop - we pay them to be confrontational. But second, if you point your gun at anyone, you're planning to shoot them.

This is not like John Crawford III, or Eric Garner, or Trayvon Martin, or Jordan Davis, or really, the other residents of Ferguson. This was one cop, against one lawbreaking citizen. This could have gone much better.

As I've said again and again, the big issue here wasn't Brown or Wilson, it was the mass violence in response to mourning the death of Mike Brown.

Wilson tried to fire three times. Brown's hands on the gun prevented it from being functionally in battery by stopping the necessary movement of the slide. It fired on the third attempt and Brown was hit in the right thumb at close range. That is when Brown withdrew from the vehicle and started running away.

 

[Gallstones]

That would be Wilson's testimony to the Grand Jury. He was being attacked through his car window by Brown. He then pulled his gun, and pointed it at Brown, at which point Brown grabbed the gun - which is when he fired 2 shots, hitting Brown in the hand.

Wilson was quite clear on why he didn't wear a taser (it was uncomfortable), why he didn't use pepper spray (it could affect him as well as Brown, as Wilson was sitting in his car at the time) and why he thought it necessary to pull his gun (he was worried Brown would knock him unconscious or kill him).

Pepper spray is ill advised when confined in a small space where you would be affected too.

 

[HenryLee]

To be fair, some of the pro-Brown witnesses may have offered dubious testimony though not as dubious as this.

Are you sure?

GJVol.13 p.176 The officer who killed MB was wearing a black hat and glasses.

GJVol.16 beginning p.147, the witness describes the "metal string" that comes out of Officer Wilson's taser.

That he wasn't carrying that day.

Also the same witness describes Wilson's beard and mustache.(p.118)


GJVol.17

p.88 Two officers in SUV

p.177 Wilson driving a regular police car, not SUV.

apps stlpublicradio org/ferguson-project/evidence.

As to Witness 40 her testimony appears in Vol. 18 and it's clear that the prosecutor doesn't take her seriously and even gets her to admit to not seeing much of anything and filling in the gaps with things she read online.

 

[plague311]

Is there a reason this was so very special enough to warrant it's very own thread, when there's a perfectly good thread covering all aspects of this incident, in detail, already?
I fail to see anything groundbreaking, or any evidence the crackpots testimony was taken seriously.


This needs merged or sent to the cornfield.

Yeah, she was "debunked" in front of the Grand Jury. A non-story.

 

[yodaluver28]

Yeah, she was "debunked" in front of the Grand Jury. A non-story.

It's not a non-story as long as her lies continue to be trotted out by a lot of people defending Wilson. It's important for people to know that someone brought in front of the grand jury is a mentally unstable racist who was obsessed with getting Wilson off the hook by any means necessary and who the FBI knew was lying about even being there. That's why it's a story.

 

[lionking]

It's not a non-story as long as her lies continue to be trotted out by a lot of people defending Wilson. It's important for people to know that someone brought in front of the grand jury is a mentally unstable racist who was obsessed with getting Wilson off the hook by any means necessary and who the FBI knew was lying about even being there. That's why it's a story.

Correct. This is just another piece in the fix-up puzzle.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Correct. This is just another piece in the fix-up puzzle.

Hang on, the Prosecutor basically trashed her in front of the GJ, and this was part of a fix? Care to explain how destroying the testimony of a pro-Wilson witness adds up to helping him get off?

 

[Joe Random]

Hang on, the Prosecutor basically trashed her in front of the GJ, and this was part of a fix? Care to explain how destroying the testimony of a pro-Wilson witness adds up to helping him get off?

"It's an X-K-Red-27 technique."

 

[carlitos]

It's not a non-story as long as her lies continue to be trotted out by a lot of people defending Wilson. It's important for people to know that someone brought in front of the grand jury is a mentally unstable racist who was obsessed with getting Wilson off the hook by any means necessary and who the FBI knew was lying about even being there. That's why it's a story.

How was the FBI involved in a St. Louis grand jury?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

To be fair, some of the pro-Brown witnesses may have offered dubious testimony though not as dubious as this.

Which # is Piaget Crenshaw? As you know, she booked herself on Oprah and everywhere else on TV to tell the world that St. Michael had his hands up and was shot in the back while running away. Turns out she didn't see anything, she was only repeating what she "heard".

 

[Foolmewunz]

Which # is Piaget Crenshaw? As you know, she booked herself on Oprah and everywhere else on TV to tell the world that St. Michael had his hands up and was shot in the back while running away. Turns out she didn't see anything, she was only repeating what she "heard".

Is this some sort of strange tu quoque argument. Since Officer Anxiety was not charged, apparently Crenshaw's, er, "testimony" didn't have any effect. The question is whether Witness #40's testimony did.

Question (not facetious and not addressed to you but to anyone with the answer): And the DA tearing her story apart? Interesting. Why was she even testifying? The DA surely could've elected to not call her.

 

[RandFan]

Hang on, the Prosecutor basically trashed her in front of the GJ, and this was part of a fix? Care to explain how destroying the testimony of a pro-Wilson witness adds up to helping him get off?

Why was she called to testify in the first place? How was her testimony probative? Was this theater on the part of the prosecutor?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Is this some sort of strange tu quoque argument. Since Officer Anxiety was not charged, apparently Crenshaw's, er, "testimony" didn't have any effect. The question is whether Witness #40's testimony did.

Question (not facetious and not addressed to you but to anyone with the answer): And the DA tearing her story apart? Interesting. Why was she even testifying? The DA surely could've elected to not call her.

The OP was wondering if there was testimony more dubious than his example. I offered a contender.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Question (not facetious and not addressed to you but to anyone with the answer): And the DA tearing her story apart? Interesting. Why was she even testifying? The DA surely could've elected to not call her.

Why was she called to testify in the first place? How was her testimony probative? Was this theater on the part of the prosecutor?

These are my questions as well.

OT/And I'm not going to wade into a 10,000 post thread about a case I have lost track of and try to catch back up. It is just silly if I'm only interested in this one aspect.