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.”
Absolutely. He probably was justified. My point was that the robbery didn't not authorize the shooting.
Let’s just hypothesize that this cop is a bad guy. Sometimes, bad people can do good things. Brown’s death is a blessing. If the government had something to do with Brown’s death, then that means that sometimes government action improves the world. It proves that government can’t be all bad.
I know this is off the subject, but look at the pictures in #29, the bottom right picture. That guy had extremely skinny ankles for his height and weight. Like putting a refrigerator on chopsticks.
6’4” and 300+ is a lot of person to try to pull through a window. That part of the witness’ story doesn’t ring true.
We need the police to give the shooter’s version of events. I think they’re making a mistake letting the deceased’s friend(s) define the story.
I think the cop is digging a deep hole to get out of by not making his version of events public.
Law enforcement police officers, being the fittest special, tactical, black ops operatives, are there to protect approved, licen$ed, degreed, tax-recirculating civilian$ against the beady-eyed, inherently useless civilians by euthanizing them with all discretion. That’s what Chinese investors in treasuries are paying for.
*Smirk*
If the call went out on the radio, and it is in the police report, then it is based on the records of the dispatch office.
Dispatch offices are REQUIRED to keep accurate records regarding the timing of calls and dispatches. It's not a game, and they are deadly serious about it.
I’m assuming the chief talked to cop and asked him.
This has become political instead of factual, just like the Trayvon Martin case. You don't want your political opponent to define the other candidate or the issues.
True, but remember that they are staring straight down the barrel of the race pimps and the full wrath of the media. While I agree wholeheartedly that it would be better to get their side out earlier rather than later, they also have to consider (and prepare for) the onslaught of lawsuits and demagoguery. Anything they say now can, and will be, used against them in the months to follow.
I am now 95% convinced that the autopsy showed that Gentle was not moving away from the officer, nor was he kneeling while he was “executed”, but rather he was moving toward the officer, and the final shots were from relatively close distance. If that is the case, then any political damage would be mitigated by a convincing volume of forensic evidence. But mistakes, even trivial ones, have a way of haunting you when the professionally aggrieved get their bite at the apple (which, in this case, is usually someone’s wallet).
Correct. If he was shot at distance, there will be no powder burns on the shirt. However, if he was shot at close range, there will be powder burns on his shirt and head, plus blood spatter from the wounds will be found on the officer’s uniform, firearm, and possibly the patrol vehicle.
One other difference from the Martin case. In the Martin case, there was no way that forensic evidence was going to show who started the altercation, which was a primary point of dispute between the media’s story, and the truthful story. Here, the autopsy, and other evidence, should be able to rule in or out, the testimony of Mr. Giant’s peers and accomplices. While I am still somewhat impressed by the ability of the left to simply ignore evidence and logic, which they did in the Martin case, arguing against an autopsy will be beyond even them (well, most of them).
In these types of situations the only one who does NOT get to talk is the officer. The only people this cop is talking to is the LEOs that are investigating.
There are protocols that police departments follow in these cases. This is not unusual but most likely very standard procedure in most LE agencies.
I was watching the news ( probably CNN) and a spokesperson for MB family said that the father used to have to “Put a KNEE on Michael’s back” in order to restrain him, and gave other references that he was an irrigable kid to raise.
First of all who forces their kid to the ground, and wow, this spokesperson, must have had other hairy tales to tell of bringing up this headstrong Baby Huey.
The Ron Paul “I hate police and want legalized drug” crowd will be very distressed by this new evidence. Then they will attack. Again.
You are a Ron Pauler right? Supporting legalized drugs, right?
If he talks against the advice of legal counsel, he would be digging a hole. In many departments, the officer will have a legal representative show up at the scene. One of the things the rep may do is to advise the officer not to make a public statement. Plus, the lawyers defending the Ferguson police in the lawsuits will also tell him not to make public statements.
In a lawsuit, that information could very well be used by lawyers defending the officer and the department.
He robbed the store and assaulted the proprietor, he assaulted a cop. That makes him a felon. When he fled he became a fleeing felon who, in all likelihood, would assault anyone who got in his way.
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.