Posted on 08/15/2014 2:26:10 PM PDT by xzins
The police officer who fatally shot 18-year-old Michael Brown did not know that he was a suspect in a convenience store robbery, Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said Friday.
Jackson said the officer, previously identified as 28-year-old Darren Wilson, initially stopped Brown and a friend ”because they were walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic.”
Police earlier Friday released security footage they said showed Brown grabbing a box of cigars from a convenience store and then shoving the clerk away to leave.
Daryl Parks, an attorney for the Brown family, confirmed that the security footage “appears to look like” the teenager, but accused the police chief of “strategically” releasing the video to “assassinate the character of Michael Brown.”
Brown’s cousin, Eric Davis, called the video “smoke and mirrors” to obscure what had happened to the 18-year-old. Brown’s friend, Dorian Johnson, said he and Brown were ordered down on the sidewalk and that the officer attempted to pull Brown into his car before Brown tried to flee and was shot.
The police have said Brown was shot amid a struggle with the officer in and around the officer’s squad car.
After the police chief’s revelation, CNN legal analyst Paul Callan speculated that the decision to release the security footage — while seemingly unrelated to the officer’s decision to stop Brown — was because “Michael Brown knew about the robbery,” even if the officer didn’t.
“The officer didn’t know about the robbery in the store when he stopped Michael Brown, but Michael Brown knew about the robbery, and Michael Brown … thought that he was being apprehended for robbery, and therefore when the officer tried to put him in the car for not being cooperative or whatever his reasoning was, Brown immediately started to struggle because he thought he was going down on a robbery in the second-degree,” Callan said.
On Fox News, legal analyst Annemarie McAvoy made the same point: “The victim knew, if it was in fact him, that he’d just committed a robbery, may have assumed that he was going to be arrested and essentially tried to resist before he gets arrested.”
Many officers have been murdered, and or seriously injured by felons after the officer makes what he thinks is a routine stop of either a traffic violator or a person on the street. The person being stopped believes that the officer is well aware of the crime that the person has just committed, and trying to avoid the police, (think robbery, murder), but the officer unknowingly is caught unaware and many times in a fight for his life when assaulted by that felon.
In Depth
Police protocol: ‘No such thing as a routine traffic stop’
Traffic stops and related incidents are the second biggest cause of police deaths
By Fabiola Carletti, CBC News Posted: Jun 29, 2011 4:19 PM ET Last Updated: Jun 29, 2011 4:59 PM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/police-protocol-no-such-thing-as-a-routine-traffic-stop-1.1031532
Could be, but the more facts get out there, the more this seems to turn in the policeman’s favor. Why let the media race hustlers get to define the case?
Do you know why they are doing this?
My take is that Trayvon Martin consumed the TV for months and distracted the entire nation, and especially conservatives.
Leading up to an election, we’re talking about a local to St Louis police case, energizing the minority base, and we’re not talking about ObamaCare, IRS, Obama Anti-Israeli sentiment, fiasco in Iraq, fiasco in Ukraine, employment participation rate, part-time economy, illegal immigration pouring thousands of infected, criminal, and low wage immigrants into this country to assault our unemployed, underemployed and disease free communities.
Any wonder why Obama dove head first into this immediately?
I don’t have any doubt.
SUPPORT THE FREEP-A-THON or lose your only place to comment and effectively comment on ALL the issues of the times.
Just looking at this punk and you know the officer had a fear for his own life all the while he was dealing with him. If that punk had been a white guy and the cop was a black guy, nobody would have questioned the shooting. If this had been a female cop and a white suspect, nobody would have questioned the shooting. This was one big ugly scary guy with a bad attitude. The cop had injuries that were apparently inflicted during a struggle. The only witness to the actual shooting was the punk’s accomplice in the strong armed robbery and these guys fit the description of the perps in that crime.
Now we have the second hand story of what the cop said took place. Honestly in the real world, whose testimony would be believed, the accomplice to a strong armed robbery or a cop with a perfect record?
These agitators were just looking for a reason to riot and loot the city. Now this cop is in mortal danger simply because he rightfully took down a “Gentle Giant” who apparently was going to kill him if he had gotten the chance.
These displays of outrage are just an excuse to blame “The Man” for all the misery that these people have brought upon themselves. Little do they realize that “The Man” is black like them.
You deliberately misquoted my original statement to make it say something else.
The Original, for the record:
"It's clear that the cops' only defense will be Imminent Threat. "Absent that, he'll likely be charged and probably convicted of Murder II. Do you dispute that? "
So, you edited my quote to mean something entirely different than the original, the lambast me me over it?
That's the tactics of the leftist media.
And then accuse me of hate when I have no expressed a single emotion?
I pretty sure other folks are noticing this too.
He met the Imminent Threat threshold.
I think you are mistaken in your assumption. Here is a friend of the officer narrating what he was told by the officer.
“He pulled up ahead of them. And then he got a call-in that there was a strong-arm robbery. And, they gave a description. And, he’s looking at them and they got something in their hands and it looks like it could be what, you know those cigars or whatever. So he goes in reverse back to them. Tries to get out of his car. They slam his door shut violently. I think he said Michael did. And, then he opened the car again. He tried to get out. He stands up.
I guess you didn't grab on to my implied point when I first corrected you. It was not in the best interest of justice to support the narrative that the police officer stopped them without cause.
By continuously pushing that claim, you are spreading false propaganda that is detrimental to the cause of justice.
Now I don't blame you at first because it has been reported that the chief did say something that appears to have added to the confusion, but once I told you the call went out on the radio, you should have informed everyone that you were no longer sure about this claim.
Again, why would someone break off a previous call unless they had heard a more important call? It makes no sense that a cop would break off a previous call just to go cruising for someone who was "Walking while black."
The facts fit far better with the explanation that the officer heard the call go out on the radio, and noted two fellows who matched the description. That makes far more sense than does the alternative.
I think he has an audience that does not care about his version of events. Unless he says that he shot him in cold blood, that is. They aren't interested in hearing any other story.
Were I him, i'd be saving it for the jury, and I would be demanding a change of venue as well. Of course, with the media deliberately polluting the jury pool, it gets harder and harder to find a non tainted jury.
Actually, what I assumed was that the police chief had talked to the policeman. I didn’t give as much credence to your comment as I did his comment that the police officer had not yet heard about the robbery.
I assumed he knew more about the case than everyone except those involved or those who had also talked to the officer. Now it appears that the police chief did not diligently inquire into the exact timing.
Below is a link to the report filed:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ferguson-police-name-michael-brown
However, it appears that more information has helped the officer rather than hurt him.
Particularly if the cop’s gun was a 9mm, it can take a LOT of shots to stop a 6’4”, 300 lb BEHEMOTH!
Police Chief now says officer might have realized Michael Brown was robbery suspect
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3193465/posts
Yes Wilson knew and did you not read it.
‘He noticed they fit the description of two people involved in a strong armed robbery nearby that had just been called in and also looked like they may have had the stolen merchandise on them. He reversed his vehicle back to where they where to question them. When he tried to get out of his car, Michael slammed the car door back closed with his body.’
This police chief was not ready for prime time. Get the story straight. Did he not even interview the officer?
I think most people here would agree with you on that. However, as the evidence comes out, this does not appear to be a case of excessive force, but of an officer responding to a threat. Has that been proven? Not yet, but neither has it been proven that the officer killed the "victim" for no reason. And since the evidence is trending in the officer's favor, it seems prudent to avoid making accusations that the evidence doesn't support.
I am one of the first ones to jump all over the cops when they kill dogs in their own yard because the cop feels "threatened", or when they toss flash-bang grenades into playpens, or perform a "dynamic entry" on the wrong house, or when they try to arrest someone for videotaping them. But when there is a reasonable case to be made that the officer was reacting to a real threat, I think we should wait until all of the facts come out before crucifying him...
For this reason, if I am stopped by the police, I place both hands on the wheel in plain site until the officer gets up to the window. I don't try to grab my registration and insurance card, etc. Once the officer asks for the registration and insurance card, THEN I open the glove box and get it for him/her. The last thing I want to do is make someone with a gun nervous...
Ditto that!
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.