Posted on 10/16/2014 9:42:03 AM PDT by walford
If he actually said to the grand jury what he told a St. Louis newspaper, this reported eyewitness to the shooting of Michael Brown may have just provided testimony that helps clear police officer Darren Wilson.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports today on its extensive interview with a man who says he testified before the Ferguson grand jury investigating whether Wilson should be indicted in the killing of Brown.
This man, says the newspaper article, claims that he saw first-hand something that would contradict what other so-called witnesses to the crime have insisted happened on that fateful day in August.
Some have said Brown raised his arms high in surrender, giving rise to a common protesters chant of Hands up, dont shoot while mimicking the move. But this witness said Brown never put his hands straight up, but held his elbows straight out from his torso, with palms turned up in a sort of gesture of disbelief.
The chant of hands up, dont shoot has become a favorite of Ferguson protestors and political activists who argue that officer Wilson shot Brown even though the unarmed teen was trying to give himself up.
This eyewitness account that Brown put his hands out to his sides but never raised them high, as reported by the Times-Dispatch, casts serious doubt on that critical aspect of the highly controversial incident.
And thats not the only thing this supposed grand jury witness said that would call into question the arguments of those who say Brown was shot down in cold blood.
Again, from the Times-Dispatch interview with the self-identified eyewitness to the August shooting:
After an initial scuffle in the car, the officer did not fire until Brown turned back toward him.
Brown staggered toward Wilson despite commands to stop.
The two were about 20 to 25 feet apart when the last shots were fired.
The Ferguson grand jury is expected to report its findings in about a month. If officer Wilson is not indicted, some protestors and agitators have threatened even greater violence, as noted by downtrend.com:
Now comes an interview with Black Panther Malik Zulu Shabazz on Fox News radio who called for a black rebellion if there is no indictment.
The white media has not been fair to black people or black leaders, he said, going on to claim the police was murdering us.
He claimed he is not calling for violence, but said he would not condemn it.
Exactly. That’s my experience with bullies, their demands and their agenda.
`Knock this chip off my shoulder’? All you can do is let the chips fall.
This race-baiting nonsense by the Shabazz’s, Als, Jesses is going to stop.
Good Call !!
Cudoes to you !
When I first went to the site, I saw only the first paragraph , and the rest was redacted .
When I reloaded , I saw the entire article.
What are you ,... a journalism major ?
Good "Snoop and Poop" effort.
Now the toughie : Have you seen or obtained a color photo of Officer Darren Wilson at the hospital ?
Many have called for it , but few, if any , have seen it.
Can you get a 'hot-link' to the photo ?
"Should you get captured , the agency will disavow you. This tape will self-destruct in 3 .2..1..sssss..ppppft !"
Let's not forget where Michael Brown's soul most probably is right now--writhing in the fires of Hell for eternity.
I would not wish one second of Hell on anyone, no matter what they did.
Having said that, I can imagine a Holy God and His anguish in seeing His Son die a horrible death on the Cross, and His unquenchable wrath when sinners reject Jesus and His sacrifice.
Part of that "justice" thingy no doubt.
However, the witness said it went down like this (summarizing from the article):
So, Brown came at Wilson three times after being told to stop, and one time after being shot (yes, Brown could have been staggering after first being shot).
The witness said "it went from zero to 100 like that, in the blink of an eye." Brown kept coming, in the blink of an eye.
How many times should Wilson backed up and yelled Stop!?
Who has seen the picture of the policeman after he was hit?
I haven’t. I remember a few passed around early but I am not sure if they were real.
How close were they to each other at that point?
The photo is of the late motocross racer, Jim McNeil. Here's what Darren Wilson looks like:
According to the witness, “about” 20-25 feet apart.
No, that Hosp photo is someone else, not Wilson.
Thanks. That sounds like quite a bit, but it really takes very little time for a threat to close in from there.
The cop did exactly what he should have. My only point was that the original article didn’t say what the one posted did.
I don’t see that witness helping Wilson, unlike what WJ was saying in their story.
“but remember which side the government is on in this issue.”
The government will have nothing to do with this, as anarchy it will be and all for one and one for all.
Me, I intend to protect my family forcefully, and I care not who is trying to knock down my door, neighbors, blacks, police, whatever. The will get their just desserts.
The Ferguson riots are not an insurrection. Liberal white participants think they are just helping their pets get more stuff. Those same will mostly get out of there if/when things get serious. A small number will join in and even become leaders.
It is the same as the Leftist elites characterizing those who are fighting to replace democracy with tyranny as “rebels.”
“The government will have nothing to do with this, as anarchy it will be and all for one and one for all.”
And let us also remember that the media will continue to gloss over aggression by one side and exaggerate what the other side does in response.
For every aggressor shot, there will be many more old men, pregnant women, handicapped people and little kids killed or maimed in response.
It’s not a ‘crisis’ until the victims start fighting back.
Grand jury will not indict. A special prosecutor will be named who will indict.
“Grand jury will not indict. A special prosecutor [APPOINTED BY ERIC HOLDER OR SOMEBODY WORSE] will be named who will indict.”
Or possibly,
“What are you going to do, shoot me?”
Once they start shooting and destroying things, they are, indeed, rebels.
Whether or not they are “rebels” depends upon their objective, not if they resort to violence. One does not “rebel” against freedom in order to install tyranny.
A neutral term would be “combatant” I suppose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.