Here is something you may be interested in relating to this: From Tech Dirt.com: "Indiana Supreme Court Declares An Officer's Testimony Is More Reliable Than Video Evidence"
Guess they think that cams on police officers are unnecessary...
As I have said for some time, I truly don’t know what happened, I don’t trust either side in this, and I think we are a far ways away from knowing everything.
Sometimes facts speak for themselves and they aren’t subject to pressure from racists and PC mongers.
She doesn’t need to say it, the evidence speaks for itself.
the autopsy shows—Brown tried to take the cops gun and kill him with it and then Brown ran at wilson to attack him again.
For a Vox article, this was pretty straightforward. The forensic pathologist said she couldn’t make any assumptions about the events, but that the evidence could support the officer’s version of the story.
When I was a Prosecutor, I was interviewed more times than I can possibly remember. All I know is that not one single time did the press get what I said 100% correct. That is why I tend to ignore what the press “analysis”. I am only interested in fact reporting and that is terribly rare anymore.
Let me get this straight. The officer’s gun is discharged inside the police cruiser, but they’re debating if Brown went for the gun?
Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
“You’re saying it was consistent with going for the gun, but it could have also been consistent with...”
No, the gun went off in the patrol car. End of discussion.
Considering the evidence inside the cruiser, this translates to them saying: “I don’t want these angry mobs after me!”
Then I am an "expert" too!
Why did they leave out of Dorian Johnson’s account the fact that he told the police Wilson had shot Johnson in the back as they were running away?
The Indiana case dealt with whether a deputy sheriff following a car down a road at 1 AM had reasonable cause to stop the car and investigate the driver, who was later shown to be intoxicated, admitted to have been drinking, was in possession of marijuana, and was driving with suspended license.
The deputy said he saw the car go off the road twice; the deputy's video cam shows the car crossing the fog line twice. The court stated: "Deputy Claeys witnessed Robinson drive over the fog line twice in a relatively short period of time, giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that she was impaired. The initial intrusion—a Terry stop—was relatively minor, and Deputy Claeys only escalated the stop after he noticed several signs that Robinson was in fact intoxicated."
It was the initial trial court that had initially made the claim, that it was “quite possible that the officer’s actual visual observation of the defendant’s vehicle was superior to the video camera in his car.”
Here's the link to the April 10th Techdirt.com article, "Indiana Supreme Court Declares An Officer's Testimony Is More Reliable Than Video Evidence," which includes a link to the April 2nd article, "Indiana: Officer Testimony Overrules Video Evidence," which references the Indiana Supreme Court decision in Robinson v. State of Indiana.
Nothing new here - an autopsy report never tells you what happened, it tells you either what is possible OR what possibilities can be excluded.
So in this case, the report confirms that Brown reaching for the gun or charging at Wilson consistent with the forensic evidence, but that OF COURSE the there are other possibilities that could explain that evidence.
The larger question, which I don’t see addressed, is whether the other witness testimony could be ruled out. Those who say Brown was NOT in the car, or did NOT have his hand on the gun, or was NOT charging the officer, but instead had his hands raised up. Clearly, there was forensic evidence to indicate those could be ruled out, and she should have been pressed on those questions.
Its too bad that officer Wilson could not have pepper sprayed, taser or hit him with the club however MB met his demise due to his very unwise and unlawful actions.
A forensic expert is a scientist of physical evidence.
The interpretation of the physical evidence is outside of her area of expertise.
But it does.
They are complaining that "news leaks" confirm the officer's story. Because they do.
Brown was not shot in the back, his hands were not up when he was shot. He did try to take the officer's gun, and he did try to rush him.
And it is undeniable, undeniable, that he was a violent thug who had committed a robbery moments prior to attacking the policeman.
Would the statement change if the threat of a New Black Panther lynching was removed
Sounds like she is trying to cover herself. Gangstas can be mean.
Maybe Brown was just hanging inside the car to give the officer a hamburger, fries, and cigar. The officer was cleaning his weapon and it accidentally went off.
Brown tried to run away, but the cop called him back and shot him because the fires were cold.
Yeah, that’s the story and I’m sticking to it.