Justice Asked That Robbery Video Not Be Released
The Department of Justice asked Ferguson, MO police not to release video of Michael Brown robbing a convenience store, but they did it anyway.
[su_center_ad]
County police had planned to release the video on Thursday, but were instructed not to by the DOJ, over concerns that the video would increase tensions in the community, a law enforcement official told CNN Saturday.
Police released the video on Friday at the same time it was announced that officer Darren Wilson shot down Mr. Brown.
During a press conference on Friday morning, Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said that Mr. Brown was the “primary suspect” in the robbery and that Mr. Wilson had been responding to the alert when he encountered Mr. Brown. At a conference on Friday afternoon, Mr. Jackson then added that Mr. Wilson was not aware of the robbery when he shot Mr. Brown, and that he initially engaged the teenager because he was walking down the street blocking traffic.[su_sky_ad]
Yenta August 16th, 2014 at 2:35 pm
Disgusting! And sadly, nobody can unring that bell. This was a deliberate effort to negatively influence the jury pool.
Carla Akins August 16th, 2014 at 6:46 pm
During this afternoon’s conference, one of the speakers noted that if/when Ofc. Wilson was brought up on charges it would be the county office and a change of venue was almost certainly guaranteed. However, I agree. It was a classless and chicken shit play.
edmeyer_able August 16th, 2014 at 2:52 pm
IMO if this is true charges need to be filed against that chief. If you watched his presser you just knew something wasn’t right with what he was saying.
mea_mark August 16th, 2014 at 2:57 pm
It probably wasn’t a legal demand. They should however be shut down and replaced with someone who will do the right thing. Rogue police departments are not good for our country and we don’t want to set a precedent of allowing them. Especially now that they are heavily armored and more resemble the army than peace officers.
edmeyer_able August 16th, 2014 at 3:03 pm
This just popped up in my feed, can he claim the 5A in filing an incident report and if he doesn’t he should hang by the evidence of the autopsy report.
Lawrence O’Donnell @Lawrence 23h
Chief seems to make it very clear that shooter did NOT write an incident report. 5th Amendment.
mea_mark August 16th, 2014 at 3:30 pm
Interesting, if you come across anything with a link let me know. I am not finding much, just O’Donnell twitter stuff.
Carla Akins August 16th, 2014 at 6:27 pm
Is that even doable? Can an officer involved in a fatal shooting refuse to complete paperwork and/or complete a review and they say, okay and let him go home? Did he just up and leave town without completing the requirements, without advising the force? How or why would they try and protect someone like that? I just don’t get how that would work.
edmeyer_able August 16th, 2014 at 6:50 pm
All good questions, and very symbolic of the way this PD has acted in the past. The unrest in this town is very understandable.
Carla Akins August 16th, 2014 at 8:05 pm
It’s completely unacceptable behavior on the part of the PD and the city administrators as well. I just don’t understand the logistics of citing 5th amendment in these circumstances.
Herb Sarge Phelps August 16th, 2014 at 3:14 pm
I agree but sadly too many voters here in Maricopa Co. Arizona don’t agree. After all look at the thuggish heavy handed Sheriff we have in Joe Arpaio and yet still too many here will not hear any wrong (and there are many) about him even as it cost them more in taxes. They won’t believe the stats that show he cost them more than he does to keep them safe. He is a fraud that has built such an army that if you do cross him he will go after you. How do you change the minds if so many say “I don’t believe those stats because I like Joe”?
Yenta August 16th, 2014 at 3:56 pm
This baffles me. Are these voters all racists? Is that the connection they feel to Arpaio? Do they hate the Latinos THAT much?
Carla Akins August 16th, 2014 at 6:21 pm
Fear. I am certain that people in border towns/states have concerns that I (in MO) have never even considered. But everywhere we have generations of racism, terrorist fear and constant news cycle bombarding us about the of out-of-control government – all which drives people to keep the devil they know.
Yenta August 16th, 2014 at 5:56 pm
Yes, it was a request, not a demand. The whole country knows the police department is rogue, and is manipulating information to protect the cop who shot Brown. The Justice Department is not stupid or uninformed. If anything, they are trying to allow the FPD to save face. But the FPD should know when to back off, and they don’t seem to know. This looks like a huge display of arrogance to me. I’m not sure what it will take to get them into a position that can be respected by the community (and the rest of the country).
Yenta August 16th, 2014 at 3:41 pm
I agree with how he appeared in that presser. He has been suspect from the beginning, regarding the truth. The cop who shot Brown immediately knew that he had to find a way to cover his ass. A news organization called the county police department asking for details, and the county police were not even aware a shooting had taken place. In the morning he connected the “robbery suspect” to the shooting, then in the afternoon he admitted the cop didn’t know Brown was a suspect, and he only confronted Brown because he was walking in the street.
R.J. Carter August 16th, 2014 at 3:07 pm
Because the first and foremost thing to do in a crisis is to stop — and then control — the flow of information.
Sort of like the FPD was doing last week, which we didn’t like.
edmeyer_able August 16th, 2014 at 3:12 pm
From my understanding of the timeline both pieces of info should have been released last Sat. It wasn’t so much the info but how it was handled.
Yenta August 16th, 2014 at 3:36 pm
Justice was trying to contain the inflammatory process, no? This article seems to be about a continuation of the FPD to control information, and therefore manipulate public opinion. It’s just more of the same. What happened in Ferguson was not about what happened in that video, so why put it out there? What is the relevance? Do you believe WE need to judge Brown’s character for justice to be done regarding a teenager being shot down in the street? That video was a distraction so folks would not focus on the cop who did the shooting. “Look over HERE…not over THERE!”
Phil J Malloy August 18th, 2014 at 11:37 am
the relivence is that it goes to show mindstate. If the kid just robbed a store, hes gonna be on edge, and hes gonna be packed of adrenaline. The video is very important
Esteban Rey August 16th, 2014 at 4:33 pm
This is not pertinent information. The only purpose this serves is to supply right wing racist asswipes with red meat.
R.J. Carter August 16th, 2014 at 4:49 pm
So the only thing pertinent to the case was the name of the officer?
edmeyer_able August 16th, 2014 at 4:52 pm
It was pertinent on Saturday not 5 days later.
R.J. Carter August 16th, 2014 at 4:57 pm
It may be more pertinent to a jury than to the public, if it’s used to build a narrative.
edmeyer_able August 16th, 2014 at 4:59 pm
The robbery or any other crime Mike Brown committed is irrelevant to an officer shooting him with his hands in the air.
Always Right August 16th, 2014 at 5:34 pm
I saw the video of Brown committing the robbery, but not the one where he got shot, Shouldn’t we wait until all the facts are known? The rush to judgment is most times wrong.
Yenta August 16th, 2014 at 5:45 pm
You say the “…rush to judgement is most times wrong.” Yet, you judged Brown by saying you saw a video of him committing the robbery. Really???!!! In that video, you do not know if he paid for whatever was in his hand. The store clerk tried to block him from leaving, and the clerk put his hands on Brown FIRST…before Brown pushed him away. Yet, you KNOW that he committed robbery! Where the hell did you get your “facts”? Do you think, MAYBE, you rushed to judgement based on what the FPD said?
Yenta August 16th, 2014 at 5:45 pm
“Always Right”. That tells a lot about you.
R.J. Carter August 17th, 2014 at 12:06 pm
If he paid for the items, then I’m sure there is video of him at the cash register.
edmeyer_able August 16th, 2014 at 5:50 pm
I never said he doesn’t deserve his day in court, but can you tell me why he deserves to leave town on the taxpayers dime and given every chance to scrub his identity from the internet before an investigation can take place?
Yenta August 16th, 2014 at 5:59 pm
Yes, where IS that video of Brown getting shot??? If there is NO video, then how will WE determine what are the FACTS?
Yenta August 16th, 2014 at 5:01 pm
It was pertinent to a community who has been profiled by the police for years. It was pertinent because it’s how these matters are generally handled. Where is it documented that a public servant can hide his/her identity if their actions become scrutinized by the public?
Esteban Rey August 17th, 2014 at 1:16 pm
I am opposed to the release of the names of all criminal defendants and accused criminals. The officer would not be an exception. This only leads to conviction in the court of public opinion and perversion of the actual justice system.
ChrisVosburg August 16th, 2014 at 4:41 pm
Yeah we get it, RJ, the narrative being sold by the WashTimes is that King Obummer’s DOJ is overlording it up by sticking their big jackbooted nose into local copper bidness and threatening the autonomy of same, who only want to give the sheeple the troo fax, bla bla. BENGHAZI! JACKBOOTS!
And of course you bought it right up. You’ll note that the WashTimes piece says that the DOJ “instructed” the locals to not release the vid, which changes the nature of the request to that of a command, but the CNN piece merely says the DOJ asked them not to.
See the difference?
R.J. Carter August 16th, 2014 at 4:47 pm
So which did the DOJ do? Instruct or demand?
FERGUSONGAZI! COVERUP!
ChrisVosburg August 16th, 2014 at 5:06 pm
Could ask the DOJ to confirm or comment I guess, which I note neither CNN nor the Washtub Times bothered to do.
And again, this is an unnamed, uncorroborated “law enforcement official,” perhaps someone within the Ferguson PD itself, just stirring up some phony bullshit about the DOJ, ’cause he’s sulking over their investigation of his nice clean police department.
R.J. Carter August 16th, 2014 at 5:12 pm
I hate the unnamed “insider” disclaimers almost as much as I hate it when an interviewer or talking head says “Some people say” — which to me is an instant indicator that “some people” are going to have the opinion of the newscaster, who doesn’t want to own up to it himself.
ChrisVosburg August 16th, 2014 at 5:17 pm
Hee hee, my personal favorite is “a source familiar with the matter,” what the hell does that even mean?
R.J. Carter August 16th, 2014 at 7:50 pm
That means “God, I hope nobody checks me on that.”
Yenta August 16th, 2014 at 5:24 pm
That surprises me. Because you like to make general comments about FPD and Justice Department, but you don’t seem to make a strong statement about where you stand. When will you “own up” to your opinions, instead of just criticizing everybody else for theirs?
Carla Akins August 16th, 2014 at 6:34 pm
RJ is our “yang”. Our conservative devil’s advocate. He has very strong opinions and principals but generally is most comfortable with waiting for all of the information before voicing. Oh and droll, RJ is very droll (he grows on you)
raincheck August 16th, 2014 at 6:52 pm
I need to remind myself of that……. (sometimes) Your such a diplomat Carla..
Carla Akins August 16th, 2014 at 8:03 pm
I am, it’s a curse.
Hirightnow August 16th, 2014 at 7:27 pm
At least he is civil.
(And, occasionally, correct!!!)
PS: Toe fungus grows on you, as well, unless you take steps…
R.J. Carter August 16th, 2014 at 7:40 pm
Like a fungus.
Hirightnow August 16th, 2014 at 7:51 pm
Beat ya to it.
(RJ, you’re one of the few conservatives I find myself agreeing with, at times…but at least I’m faster!)
R.J. Carter August 16th, 2014 at 7:58 pm
That’s what she said. (I’ve been waiting FOREVER to find someplace to use that!) 🙂
Hirightnow August 16th, 2014 at 8:05 pm
I…uhhh….it’s just that I…my doctor said that…
Shit.
Ya got me.
😛
Carla Akins August 16th, 2014 at 8:00 pm
Exactly what I was thinking, but I didn’t want to ruin the surprise. 🙂
raincheck August 16th, 2014 at 6:59 pm
Should be “demand” because the FPD sure isn’t to be trusted to handle ANYTHING!
raincheck August 16th, 2014 at 7:02 pm
FERGUSON AND FURIOUS
R.J. Carter August 16th, 2014 at 7:59 pm
FAST AND FERGIOUS?
labman57 August 16th, 2014 at 3:54 pm
It appears that Chief Jackson only wants to release information which he believes will exonerate Officer Wilson of wrong-doing, and he is deliberately withholding any and all details that would indicate improper action was taken during the altercation that led to Michael Brown’s death.
Had Jackson believed that Brown was not involved in the cigar theft, it is likely that these details would never have been made public. He chose to release the video simply to gin up disdain for the victim, knowing full well that the cigar incident had no bearing on the confrontation between Brown and Wilson.
Yenta August 16th, 2014 at 4:08 pm
I agree. I don’t believe the police made a connection between Brown and that video until days after Brown was killed. Jackson would have put that video out right away if he had it, and could have used it against Brown. National sympathy for Brown might have been a little subdued from the beginning if that video were released. Jackson is trying to do damage control…meaning damage to his own department.
John Tarter August 16th, 2014 at 11:56 pm
Okay, so the cop wantonly shot the kid to death and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. End of story.
John Tarter August 17th, 2014 at 12:00 am
And the other side tried to make the victim out to be some sort of law abiding “gentle giant” which we now know through the video to not be the case.
So what we have here is a probable thief and a possible murdering cop. Both sides are posturing.
R.J. Carter August 16th, 2014 at 3:54 pm
Usually something like “Clop” if it’s a dress shoe, “Thump” if it’s a sneaker / trainer.
Thing is, I have a feeling this whole issue is a centipede back from a jog. There’s going to be more than just one more shoe dropping.
NW10 August 16th, 2014 at 4:09 pm
Again, from Rude Pundit:
Let’s be f**king clear about Michael Brown:
It doesn’t matter if he was the biggest drug dealer in the St. Louis metropolitan area.
It doesn’t matter if he was the baddest gangsta in the Ferguson ‘hood.
It doesn’t matter if he was the biggest pimp in the state.
It doesn’t matter if he had committed robberies or purse snatchings.
It doesn’t matter how many gang signs he flashed with his hands.
It doesn’t matter if he said, “F*ck tha police” every chance he got.
It doesn’t matter if he flipped off cops or grabbed his junk while looking at them.
None of that justifies being gunned down by a police officer. None of it.
Of course, Michael Brown wasn’t any of the above.
What does matter is what the cop did and what the cops have done and will do. You can bet that the officer who shot Brown didn’t ask if he was a future college student. He was just another ni**er, indistinguishable from the ni**ers around him, and that was enough.
– See more at:
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2014/08/lets-be-clear-about-michael-brown.html#sthash.a2mYOj9S.dpuf
joe barry August 16th, 2014 at 11:30 pm
Good point! It act of a coward to shoot someone after the altercation is over. I do not care if you are police, a civilian, or a criminal – you are a coward.
joe barry August 16th, 2014 at 11:30 pm
Good point! It act of a coward to shoot someone after the altercation is over. I do not care if you are police, a civilian, or a criminal – you are a coward.
John Tarter August 16th, 2014 at 4:48 pm
No one should be afraid of the whole truth regarding this incident , least of all the Obama Justice Dept. But obviously the robbery video did not fit the narrative of Mr. Brown as your all around nice young man. If a crime had been committed there goes your civil rigjts violation case rght out the window.
And I will say again for my friends here, if that cop shot Michael Brown dead while he was trying to surrender he should be charged and tried in a court of law – a local court of law.
NW10 August 16th, 2014 at 4:54 pm
But obviously the robbery video did not fit the narrative of Mr. Brown as your all around nice young man.
It didn’t fit the FPD narrative of ni**ering Michael Brown up, as Officer Darren Wilson wasn’t aware that Brown was a suspect, according to the police chief.
And I will say again for my friends here, if that cop shot Michael
Brown while he was trying to surrender he should be charged and tried in
a court of law.
It’s not a question of IF, the police chief has more or less admitted it happened. It’s a question of why it happened, and thus far, the FPD has tried and failed to cover their own asses.
edmeyer_able August 16th, 2014 at 4:54 pm
So you’re giving the officer a pass on murdering a teenager on his knees surrendering because a box of cigars were stolen, we get it you hate others.
Always Right August 16th, 2014 at 5:25 pm
Did you even read what John wrote because it had no regard to your response. You interpreted what you wanted it to say, not what it actually said.
edmeyer_able August 16th, 2014 at 5:26 pm
Umm actually he edited that after I replied.
raincheck August 16th, 2014 at 7:31 pm
Please proceed… o-O lol
Yenta August 16th, 2014 at 4:54 pm
And, obviously, the facts of the fatal shooting of Michael Brown did not fit the narrative of the Ferguson Police Department as a fair and lawful organization, not biased against the predominately Black population in Ferguson.
Oh, you are willing to have the cop charged and tried in a court of law. But Michael Brown should be convicted in the court of public opinion, beginning with you, obviously.
Always Right August 16th, 2014 at 5:22 pm
You just proved what John was saying. There is proof of Mr. Brown committing a strong armed robbery, so you have facts to make a judgment. There is no clear evidence showing the shooting so it would be best to allow the facts to be determined in a court of law and not public opinion.
Yenta August 16th, 2014 at 5:38 pm
Correct, there is NO CLEAR EVIDENCE showing the shooting. John suggested that if Brown was involved in a robbery, then a cop shooting him down was justified. He said, “If a crime had been committed there goes your civil rigjts violation case rght out the window.” Really??? How does his involvement in a robbery negate his civil rights? Was he not entitled to a trial regarding the robbery? Or do we just watch a video these days and proceed to a cop being a judge, jury, and executioner?! Your claim: “There is proof of Mr. Brown committing a strong armed robbery, so you have facts to make a judgment”. You saw a video, and you KNOW that Brown didn’t pay for whatever he took. You KNOW from that video he committed a crime. REALLY??? All you “know” about that video is what the FPD TOLD you about it.
You CLAIM that it would be “best to allow the facts to be determined in a court of law and not public opinion.” But that is NOT what you are doing here. You just pronounced “proof” of something because you watched a video. You are COUNTING on public opinion.
John Tarter August 16th, 2014 at 11:52 pm
The question of a Federal civil rights violation is this: Was Michael Brown targeted because he was black, or because he was involved in a crime? That question has no bearing on the other question which is: Did the victim get killed as he tried to surrender? This is a local matter all the way around and should be dealt with in the local legal system. There is no need for the highly partisan Federal Justice Dept. to get involved.
whatthe46 August 17th, 2014 at 2:03 am
you better believe it.
Obewon August 16th, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Always Right? Your child or relative was just stopped for jaywalking and:
1. You think the PD can murder “an unarmed jaywalker?”
2. When the jaywalkers “hands were raised in the air?”
3. When the jaywalker “poses no threat?”
4. To the safety of that police officer?
GTFO of America! You need a lot of professional psychological help to begin to see why you remain always wrong and most likely a Fox fed racist.
The PD admits Michael Brown was shot and murdered for jaywalking! ‘You think it’s legal for a PD to kill your own unarmed child or relative who was just stopped for jaywalking?’
BTW The $5 cigarello’s aren’t relevant to his murder by PD and are a separate matter.
-If suspected of a $5 theft? ‘Always Wrong’ alone thinks his own child, or relative should be summary executed, without trial or sentancing.
Hirightnow August 16th, 2014 at 7:16 pm
Not “proof”
“Allegations”.
But, you’ve likely never dealt with the “justice” system before…
whatthe46 August 16th, 2014 at 7:41 pm
it was a shoplifting charge until the clerk approached him and touched him first. and when i hear the term “strong arm” robbery, i certainly don’t see it as shown here. they want to make it out to be worse than what it actually was. then when they admitted that the child killer, had no idea about any “robbery” it only made things worse for them.
ChrisVosburg August 16th, 2014 at 5:34 pm
John Tarter writes: If a crime had been committed there goes your civil rigjts violation case rght out the window.
Whoa, slow down there, sparky! Not that it’s relevant here, but commission of a crime does not automatically strip the civil rights of a suspected perp.
Yenta August 16th, 2014 at 5:40 pm
Yessssssss!
Hirightnow August 16th, 2014 at 7:15 pm
Except for that nasty little fact that the officer didn’t know about the robbery….
raincheck August 16th, 2014 at 4:58 pm
Why are they afraid of releasing the autopsy report?.. I think they don’t want to show how many times and where he was shot… how many bullets did the officer feel he needed to pump into an unarmed man, until the “fleeing man” “kneeling down, arms raised man” was no longer a threat… how many bullets?
R.J. Carter August 16th, 2014 at 4:59 pm
There’s more of that “control the flow of information” I was talking about.
Yenta August 16th, 2014 at 5:20 pm
“Control the flow of information” is pretty generic. Why don’t you say what you really mean? You cast aspersions in a general way, but decline to take a stand on the issues that are presented here. Do you believe the FPD are wrong or right? Do you believe the Justice Department is wrong or right? Or maybe you just like to argue for the sake of argument. That’s okay, but it puts you in a different category. If that’s the case, then you don’t seem to have scruples, or firm beliefs in anything. You just seem to want to play Devil’s Advocate. Most of us have a strong feeling about right and wrong, fair and unfair. You seem to be about arguing for the sake of debate, and nothing else. Why don’t you tell us.
R.J. Carter August 18th, 2014 at 11:45 am
At this point, the sake of debate is all we have. Taking a side right now is untenable.
Yenta August 16th, 2014 at 5:13 pm
I agree. According to a FEW witnesses, Brown was shot in the back twice before he turned around and put up his hands in a show of “surrender”. The autopsy report has to document this. According to those same witnesses, Brown was shot five more times while his hands were up, or some of those while he was on his back in the street. I have read some accusations that he was actually shot in the face. If so, that is PERSONAL. That is HATE, directed at Brown in a personal way. The autopsy report has to come out eventually, and I think the release of the “robbery” video was an attempt to convince the public that whatever was done to Brown, he deserved it because he was “just another thug”.
raincheck August 16th, 2014 at 5:50 pm
IMO the video was released to make people think he was a “dangerous” “thug” STRONG ARMED ROBBERY!! After realizing their mistake (saying “the officer didn’t know he was connected to the robbery” it would be better to show the officer (filled him full of lead) because it would look better if he was a “dangerous thug” who had just committed strong armed robbery… so they changed the story… The longer it takes to get the “facts” out, the more time they have to work on their story…. WHERE’S THE REPORT!! (That’s the “control the flow of information” I’m talking about R.J.
Yenta August 16th, 2014 at 6:05 pm
Yes, I agree! If that video were released without a narrative (from the police), you wouldn’t be able to know exactly what had happened. When I looked at it, I saw the store clerk get in front of Brown and try to prevent him from leaving. Brown then pushed the clerk, and walked toward him before leaving the store. If there was no narrative from the police, nobody could discern what was going on there. The video doesn’t tell anything without the ‘story’ from the police dept.
Hirightnow August 16th, 2014 at 7:13 pm
Having long ago read Orwell, I agree 100%.
whatthe46 August 16th, 2014 at 7:33 pm
in particular, how
many shots did he receive in the back.
Phil J Malloy August 18th, 2014 at 11:32 am
0 according to the autopsy report
Phil J Malloy August 18th, 2014 at 11:12 am
well now that the autopsy is out, it shows he was shot 6 times, and in the front, NOT in the back, NOT on the ground….
Jeff Lachance August 22nd, 2014 at 9:11 am
You must be seeing another report. .. the one I seen said the wounds showed he had his arms up and also the killing shot was to the top of the head execution style….
Alastorchang August 24th, 2014 at 8:27 pm
Couldnt have been execution style or there would be gp residue on his head, the coroner said possibly he was falling from previous shots, his head was down surrendering, of charging
edmeyer_able August 16th, 2014 at 7:34 pm
Witness says Ferguson cops wouldn’t let a nurse do CPR on Brown. “They didn’t even check to see if he was breathing.” http://nyti.ms/1mSE7eN
Alastorchang August 16th, 2014 at 7:43 pm
I believe the releasing of the video was important. It does provide a piece of fact into the case. All evidence and information should be provide because we need the truth. In my opinion the officer should be detained until trial. The most important piece of evidence is the autopsy which will determine truth. If Mike has a single gun shot from the back the cops story is nothing but a lie and he murdered him. If he was not shot in the back clearly Johnson and the other witnesses lied and officer may have been defending himself.
I am highly doubtful of that because if the officer was telling the truth Mike’s fingerprints would be on the police car and gun and a swarm of police would have showed up within minutes not hours
whatthe46 August 16th, 2014 at 8:15 pm
“It does provide a piece of fact into the case.” how so? what evidence did the cop have that brown stole cigars? none. that was a separate incident that did not involve this cop at all. and how
convenient. He had a swollen face (says
the cop) but no one heard of this until days later. Even the chief said he didn’t know about it. Sounds familiar? Zimm said his head was beaten into the ground, yet he only had
scratches. And he didn’t appear to have
a broken nose on the police photo that night, yet a few days later, look at all
the boo boo’s. and another thing about zimm. If martin did manage to get a few licks in,
then good for him.
Alastorchang August 18th, 2014 at 9:42 pm
I find it necessary because the have painted him as a gentle giant in the media but now we know on the same day he forcibly stole. It does give a small amount of credibility to the police officer. However, in all likelihood, the police officer killed him in cold blood. He failed to report it fled the scence which are clear signs of misconduct and most likely michael was shot multiple times in the back proving michael was fleeing not attacking as the police said
Alastorchang August 18th, 2014 at 9:56 pm
I agree with you on the zimm/martin case. If I felt like zimm was stalking me and following me home I probably would have defended myself or called the police on him. But then again all the police I have met have been good and moral
joe barry August 16th, 2014 at 11:28 pm
I agree 100 percent. In my opinion – only a coward shoots someone in the back, or chances them shooting when the fight is over, and that goes for criminals, police, and civilians. The forensic’s will determine which party is telling the truth.
Good post! But you will anger the cowards who think that people should be able to shoot people they determine to be scumbags.
joe barry August 16th, 2014 at 11:28 pm
I agree 100 percent. In my opinion – only a coward shoots someone in the back, or chances them shooting when the fight is over, and that goes for criminals, police, and civilians. The forensic’s will determine which party is telling the truth.
Good post! But you will anger the cowards who think that people should be able to shoot people they determine to be scumbags.
greenfloyd August 17th, 2014 at 12:29 am
What’s puzzling is the chief, Thomas Jackson, said the cop, Daren Wilson, was not aware of the robbery and engaged suspect-cum-victim, Michael Brown, on an unrelated matter. Yet Jackson brings out this video, over DOJ objection, obviously trying to make some connection.
I wonder if any call to the police was made by the folks at the store allegedly robbed by Brown? What kind of radio traffic between local cops and dispatchers took place prior to the shooting of Brown. Is there a history between Wilson and Brown, as apparently there is between Wilson and at least one young lady’s encounter with him about a month ago, just after she had been maced…
whatthe46 August 17th, 2014 at 1:05 am
you may be on to something.
greenfloyd August 17th, 2014 at 1:32 am
It gets weirder and weirder. Just caught up on several CNN videos from yesterday… Jackson is all over the place, I think he’s changed the story four times already… Rude Pundit was right.
whatthe46 August 17th, 2014 at 2:02 am
my heart aches over this mess.
raincheck August 18th, 2014 at 11:37 am
I’d heard the store never called 911…. (msnbc)