Tuesday, December 02, 2014

Darren Wilson did NOT know about the convenience store robbery when he confronted Michael Brown on the streets of Ferguson. Update!

Courtesy of the Daily Mail:  

In Wilson's now very public account of his encounter with Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson on August 9 he has claimed that he asked Brown and Wilson to move to the sidewalk rather than walk in the street. 

When they walked on, Wilson has repeatedly stated, he realized they matched the description of two suspects wanted in connection with the robbery of nearby Ferguson Market. A youth matching Brown's description had stolen a box of Swishers cigarillos. 

It was this realization, he stated, that caused him to reverse his vehicle and sparked the car-side confrontation that left Brown dead on the street with six bullets in his body. 

But the sworn testimony of Wilson's squad supervisor directly contradicts this account. 

Wilson's supervisor was the first officer to speak with the 28-year-old cop following the shooting. The men spoke before St Louis County Police had even been notified of the incident and before the medical examiner or investigating officers had arrived on the scene. 

At that time, the supervisor said:'He [Wilson] did not know anything about the stealing call.' 

When pressed by the attorney questioning him, the officer reiterated that Wilson, 'did not know anything'. 

Asked, 'He told you he didn't know about there being a stealing at Ferguson Market?' 

The officer responded, 'Correct.' 

Now this is a key fact because, number one it proves that Wilson was not responding to a person that he knew to be violent, and number two it proves that Wilson lied to the Grand Jury. 

And the part that I found particularly enlightening was that in fact Wilson could NOT have known about the robbery because the call came in AFTER the shooting had already taken place.

(Update: Okay somebody asked me how I know that the robbery call came in after the shooting. In point of fact I described that poorly. What I meant to say was that it was unlikely that other officers would be looking out for Brown as the responding officer only received the call after 11:54, which is immediately after the robbery took place. He then had to drive to the convenience, conduct his interview (At which time he received a more detailed description.) Brown was shot dead at 12:01 which means that quite literally this officer was probably in the process of conducting his investigation.  And as this was a low priority, unarmed, snatch and grab it is very unlikely that he called for assistance or put out an APB.)

And remember 15 witnesses said that Michael Brown was running away when Wilson started firing at him, and 16 said he had his hands up before the last bullets were fired.



I think at this point the Justice Department has no choice but to launch their own investigation.

This whole thing stinks like crazy.

99 comments:

  1. Anonymous2:43 PM

    Oh boy it is the chart again....

    All that chart shows is how all over the map most the witnesses were Gryph. Additionally, all the chart bullet points have generalized all the nuances that could really mean all the difference.

    The Grand Jury got it right. They didn't just look at an oversimplified chart. There will be no Federal civil rights charges. You are confusing your own head with too much misinformation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:30 PM

      No, the chart shows why the Grand Jury SHOULD have indicted. There was enough evidence to suggest that MAYBE Wilson wasn't justified in shooting Mike Brown. The burden of proof isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt," but much lower for a GJ indictment (probable cause) and the decision does not have to be unanimous. If Wilson was "not guilty", he would have washed out during a trial. But the process should not have ended when it did. Failure to indict should be reserved for nearly clear cut instances of justifiable homicide/self-defense, etc.. This was not one of those cases.

      I don't know if there will or will not be federal civil rights charges and neither do you.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous6:38 PM

      No 5:30. The chart is not evidence, and it is a grand generalization of the case and it is fraught with incorrect information. I do know there will not be a Federal trial or civil trial because I live in the real world.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous10:49 PM

      6:38 PM Your real world is full of shit.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous3:46 AM

      TO: Anonymous6:38 PM

      You are on here defending a 'killer cop'. And I believe there most certainly will be a federal indictment.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous2:43 PM
      All that chart shows is how all over the map most the witnesses were.Additionally, all the chart bullet points have generalized all the nuances that could really mean all the difference. The Grand Jury got it right.
      ----------------------------------
      No. The grand jury got it wrong. So did you. You evidently don't know what the purpose of a grand jury is. They are *not* the triers of fact who determine the guilt or innocence of someone. All they do is determine whether or not there is sufficient reason to indict someone.

      The chart clearly shows that there was a great deal of conflicting testimony and evidence. It would be reasonable to indict so that all of the testimony and evidence could be tried in court before a jury, the triers of fact.

      Again, the role oof the grand jury was *not* to determine Wilson's guilt or innocence.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous6:35 AM

      Nefer once again you are a moron. Nobody is saying whether they were there to determine guilt or innocence, as you said and everyone agrees, they were there to indict or not indict based on the evidence. Based on the evidence, they chose not to indict. End of story. Wilson is cleared of wrongdoing. He is guilty of nothing, because he did nothing wrong.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous7:33 AM

      Anonymous6:35 AM

      The killer cop is not cleared yet.

      Remember when the Rodney King beaters were acquitted by that Simi Valley, California jury, and the Feds stepped in, indicted them federally, and got a convictions.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous8:29 PM

      I quite often disagree with most people that read this site. However, I must both agree and disagree on this one.

      The forensic evidence shows that Mr. Brown had leaned into the car and likely attacked Officer Wilson, wherein Officer Wilson shot Mr. Brown's thumb. This tells me that Mr. Brown was all over the officer, and when you go for an officer's gun (which is likely) you forfeit your right to not get arrested. Also, forensic evidence also shows that Mr. Brown was NOT running away, but faced the officer. With this many divergent stories, there are a number of stories some accurate, some not. We have to Look at their whole testimony. If they changed it. If it matches with what we know about the forensic evidence. Like the ones stating he was shot in the back. Very inaccurate.

      Now, for the part I agree with. Any prosecuting attorney has a job and that is to prosecute. A Grand Jury's job is to listen to the best evidence the prosecuter has to possibly convict. By giving every shred of evidence, every witness account should give all the evidence, and even the defenders testimony, all they did was to treat this as a trial. I thought it was good at first, that way, no one can say they hid evidence, but upon further reflection, they did not treat this the correct way.

      I do feel that, first off, there are too many "out of towners" making things worse. They don't care if the whole city burns. Second, if these people are doing such a bad job, then why weren't they voted out?!? If the protesters want change, then make that change. Become officers, or get voted in, or community action. Two wrongs, don't make a right.
      Dumbass

      Delete
  2. Anonymous3:05 PM

    Hell I have been talking about that fact for a while now. If you go back and look at the press conferences that the Ferguson Police Chief held, where they released the convenience store videotape, he said that Wilson did not know about the robbery. Here is a link to Huffpo from August 15th.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/15/tom-jackson-michael-brown_n_5682762.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I recognize that this fact has been out there for awhile, and in fact in my last Ferguson post I alluded to it.

      However I always believed that the fact of when Wilson learned of the robbery was in dispute, and now, at least in my mind, it is not.

      Delete
  3. Anonymous3:05 PM

    I fail to see how knowing or not knowing about the robbery is of any major consequence. The actions that got Brown shot was assaulting Wilson and struggling for his weapon, then doubling back for another go, not the robbery and not jaywalking.

    If Wilson did not know about the robbery, he was probably even more taken by surprise when Brown attacked him not knowing that Brown might have been trying to get away. If he did know about the robbery and thought Brown was a suspect, then he was doing his duty attempting to apprehend him. The only thing that stinks about this case is the continued attempts to distort facts and reality, to the benefit of trying to make a saint of Mike Brown- the guy who 5 minutes earlier had been shoving around a store clerk, and vilify a cop doing his job- who 5 minutes earlier was responding to a sick baby call, and before that he was responding to a call from a woman who was reporting a man had threatened to shoot her.

    Use that big brain of yours to separate reality from the mythology you want so bad Gryph. Sometimes there is no underdog, the bad guy is the bad guy, and there are no winners.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >I fail to see how knowing or not knowing about the robbery is of any major consequence.<

      That might not be if he wasn't asked under oath. But if indeed Wilson lied to the grand jury, that's perjury, and criminally actionable on its own.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous3:59 PM

      No one is claiming that Michael Brown was a saint. However, there are far too many unanswered questions and too much conflicting information for this case to be closed without further investigation.

      The handling of the crime scene and key evidence was shoddy and unprofessional, the legal information distributed to the jury members was outdated and unconstitutional, and the behavior of the prosecutor has been criticized by many legal professionals. The events that you claim got Brown shot are largely based on the accused's personal version of what happened. The witness accounts varied enough that further questioning by a real prosecutor are warranted. Of course, Michael Brown's version of that day's events will never be heard.

      Most importantly, none of the crimes Michael Brown MAY have committed that day warranted the death penalty. He MAY have been a thief and a bully, but he did not deserve to die.

      Furthermore, no one is demanding that Darren Wilson be locked up tomorrow. If this case went to trial and the evidence did not prove guilt on his part, then so be it. But Michael Brown lost his life and the least that should happen is a thorough, impartial investigation and trial.

      Delete
    3. 3:59,
      You just stated exactly how I feel. Thank you for saving me the typing.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous4:25 PM

      So not being a saint justifies getting the top of your head blown off? What, because it won't be needed to hold up the halo?

      Delete
    5. RWNJ: "Brown attacked him"
      Reality: After Wilson yelled at Brown and Johnson to "get the f*** on the sidewalk", Wilson drove on a few feet, then backed up his SUV, angled it right in front of Brown and Johnson, and opened his car door, hitting Brown and Johnson. Presumably that angered Brown, who slammed the door shut, which escalated Wilson's attitude.

      After a tussle, Wilson fired his gun twice, hitting nothing the first time and hitting Brown's thumb and burying the bullet in the car door.

      Brown and Johnson both took off running, and Wilson connected with one shot hitting Brown's right arm as he pursued him. Brown stopped, turned around, and raised his arms (apparently not high enough). Rather than Wilson stopping shooting, Wilson shot him in the arm twice more, and in the chest twice, puncturing his right upper lung, then fracturing a rib which then punctured his right lower lung.

      The reason Wilson gave for these repeated shots is that Brown supposedly was advancing on him. But what's to say Brown was STAGGERING toward Wilson by that time, and what Wilson said was "hulking up" was actually a gesture of agony, Brown clutching his gunshot arm against his body, as he struggled to breathe after feeling the effects of a decompressing lung?

      So, we have a 18 year old man lying dead on the street with his brains leaking out, his eyeball disintegrated, and the rest of his body riddled by bullets, all because Officer Wilson had 3 scuff marks -- one on the back of his head, his right cheek, and his lip -- which in truth he provoked?

      Delete
    6. Anonymous5:03 PM

      And there you go again 3:59.... trying to link the term 'death penalty' to crimes that are obviously not punishable by death- we are all aware of that, as I said in my post!

      Attacking and assaulting a cop, and grabbing his gun, then coming after him a second time, will likely get you shot, it is called self defense. Sometimes people die when they do such stupid things and another person has to defend themselves.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous5:07 PM

      Kajo, straight from the lies of Dorian Johnson I presume?

      Maybe you should go be a cop in Ferguson, see how many minutes you last.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous5:23 PM

      It matters if Wilson lied.

      Honestly, what happened in the convenience store might speak to whether Brown has violent "tendencies" or "tendencies" to act in an aggressive manner when confronted with wrong-doing or confronted in general. It undermines people who call Brown a "gentle giant." He wasn't gentle with that little guy in the store. But that doesn't mean he assaulted Wilson or tried to take his gun. Nothing is black and white (so to speak).

      It might matter if Brown thought Wilson knew about what happened in the convenience store, but we don't know what Brown thought because now he's dead.

      I honestly don't know what to think about this case. There are a lot of conflicting stories, which is one reason it should have gone to trial.

      The problem is that some people take it on faith that Brown assaulted Wilson at all and in any way that would justify Wilson shooting him as well as the fact that Brown went for Wilson's gun. The OP here takes that on faith. Many of us aren't so sure.

      The OP suggests that Gryphen and the rest of us can't comprehend that sometimes there are bad guys. That's completely untrue.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous10:42 PM

      5:07 PM Why do you think that Dorian Johnson was lying, and that Wilson was telling the truth? Johnson has nothing to lose, but Wilson Lied to cover his ass.
      You right wingers always assume that the Black witnesses are liars. I have worked as a bailiff in the courts, and the judges would sometimes laugh at the blatant LIES of some officers. Case in point: An officer testified that he observed a male suspect selling rock cocaine while the officer was hiding in the bushes. The suspect stood up and yelled,"he's lying, your Honor, there are no bushes on that street".

      Delete
    10. Anonymous10:46 PM

      Since our new troll believes only Officer Wilson's 'story' over the 16 other witnesses, we must be wrong.

      Delete
    11. Anonymous2:17 AM

      So, in order to evade the police Michael Broiwn was walking in the middle of the street?? In that photo of Wilson, he looks every bit as intelligent as Wis. gov Scott Walker. He should join the clown car of repubs. running for the WH. No amount of $$$ his supporters raise will clear his conscience, he is a cold blooded killer. If shooting and killing shoplifters is par for the couse these days, the woman who insulted every member of the First Family should thank her lucky stars Wilson was not on duty in her city when she shopliffted.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous6:25 AM

      Dorian Johnson was caught in multiple lies over this incident. He also was known to give false statements in the past.

      Delete
    13. Anonymous7:36 AM

      Anonymous3:59 PM

      Wilson is not saint either.

      Delete
  4. I'm trying to understand something and I've read conflicting reports. I saw the picture of Wilson's "injury" (red right cheek). He said Wilson was punching him through his car window. How was the right cheek the only area injured? Wouldn't he have gotten better punches to the front or on his left cheek (since he was sitting in his car). How could punches to the right cheek have been hard enough that he feared for his life? Also he said when Wilson tried to take his gun it was pressing into his side. It would have been holstered on his right side so he would have leaned pretty far in to reach the gun. Pretty confusing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous3:38 PM

      Their are lots of news reports that focus on the photos. Almost no one is reporting on Wilson's hospital record which cited: "no bleeding, no laceration, no ecchymosis [bruises]"

      Delete
    2. Anonymous2:19 AM

      someone lied and claimed Wilson had an eye socket injury. No sign of that, either.

      Delete
  5. Anonymous3:33 PM

    I do wish that there was a nationwide psychological test used to weed out the control freaks before hiring them for police, sheriff or state trooper jobs. Everyone recognizes that there are over-controlling parents who are prone to abuse their children if their "orders" aren't followed immediately and there are over-controlling men who will abuse women but nobody seems to get it that there are cops who will pull their guns if someone doesn't instantly respond to the cop's demands/orders.

    I'm for psychological tests plus immediate drug and alcohol tests for cops when there is a shooting and body cameras on all cops.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous2:21 AM

      I wonder what happened to Wilson's first wife? Her story would be telling, since he just remarried another police officer and she is pregnant already.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous6:05 AM

      I know a man like that who was turned down by the LA Sheriffs Department. He became a teacher who mentally abused students. His father was well-connected.

      Delete
  6. Anonymous3:35 PM

    How do you know the call came in after AFTER the shooting?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous3:38 PM

    3:13 PM

    I've got the same questions about the "two punches to Wilson's Face" with not even red marks to show for it as well as the "reaching for Wilson's gun" when it was worn on Wilson's right side.

    Wilson himself is a big man. For Michael Brown to reach between the steering wheel and Wilson's stomach to the right side of Wilson's body in an attempt to get the gun ... well, I just don't believe it.

    I believe Wilson concocted his story to cover his ass for killing an unarmed kid and he got away with it. So far.........

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe that's why he really quit. He'd have to know perjury before a grand jury would cost his badge anyway.

      Delete
    2. The interesting thing about quitting now means his wife, also a cop, gets to support him.

      Marrying her (they were only engaged back in early August) during this past 3 months means she now can't testify against him in this case if it ever goes to trial. And I'll bet she knows the truth of the matter.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous4:54 PM

      Sherlock Holmes, you are not. Keep your job flipping burgers, we'll all be safer.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous5:52 PM

      4:54 PM Projecting much? How can you ASSume that someone flips burgers for a living from a blog posting, assclown? If you are so supportive of Officer Wilson, donate money instead of 'yapping' nonsense on the internet.

      Delete
  8. WalterNeff3:45 PM

    I believe that Wilson grabbed Brown through the window and pulled him closer to the car—Brown, being an idiot, understandably, but thoughtlessly, fought back (hence the blows). The frightened cop (who is absolutely a pussy) moronically pulled his gun and Brown stupidly, but understandably, tried to fend him off. Then it all went haywire.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4:31 PM

      I read somewhere that Wilson had done that before to someone. He grabbed a suspect through the window and held him close to the car until backup came. He was recognized for that move. Ugh. What a jerk.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous4:37 PM

      I don't think that Wilson was justified in shooting Brown, but I wonder why you think Wilson would grab Brown through the window and pull him closer to the car. That doesn't make any sense.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous5:35 PM

      Oops, I 4:31's comment wasn't posted when I wrote mine at 4:37. If that's Wilson's move to detain a suspect until backup comes, he's not a very good cop. If he tried to do that to Brown, someone who outweighed him by 70 pounds, you have to question his intelligence.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous5:47 PM

      4:37 PM If you live in a city, you have seen officers do that frequently. It is called being 'badge heavy'.

      Delete
  9. Anonymous3:45 PM

    Yes, Wilson lied.

    Lawrence O'Donnell has reported on two other factors that show prosecutor misinformation and misconduct:
    1. The DA discredited most of the witnesses....except the one who corroborated Wilson's story. The problem is that witness also changed his story: he told police he saw the incident from 100 yards away; he told the grand jury he was 50 or 30 yards away.

    2. Just prior to Wilson's testimony, the prosecutor gave the grand jurors a copy of a law that allowed police shooting of suspects who were running away. That law was found unconstitutional in 1985. The prosecutor didn't provide the correct law until deliberation while telling the jurors not worry about the unconstitutional thing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous4:02 PM

    Officer Wilson knew Mike Brown was big because he was beside him when he told him to get off the street. Wilson chose to reverse his police car and get close to Mike Brown again. Did Wilson even consider what might happen? What if Mike Brown had been a crazed druggie packing heat?

    I think Officer Wilson made a stupid choice. And subsequent events have been a series of stupid choices by people at all levels of police and government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4:52 PM

      So tell us what he should have done? Drive away? Go hide? You're about as clueless as they come. I'm sure he did consider what might happen, yet he still did his job. Yep definitely clueless.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous5:40 PM

      At the start of the incident, the crime was walking in the street and failure to comply to an officer's direction (to stop walking in the street). The alternatives weren't "drive away" or "go hide." He could monitor the situation and/or call for backup if he thought it was an offense worthy of police attention. I don't know where you get "go hide" from.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous5:44 PM

      4:52 PM From what he is going through now, he made a bad decision.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous6:20 PM

      In what way have you established that you are not clueless?

      Delete
    5. Anonymous7:00 PM

      Umm Anonymous4:52 PM I would think it's common sense l to not want to confront anyone while you're still seated in your vehicle as a police officer. He could have very easily pulled ahead and got out of the car even before saying a word to M. brown.

      Your defense of this officer is very interesting to read though.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous6:14 AM

      LOVE the 4:52 troll who graduated from the Reader's Digest School of Law. Honey, you don't know shit, and you have watched too many police TV shows. Your utter disdain for everyone else is very telling about your very poor self-image. There are ways to disagree and to present your case without being condescending. You obviously prop yourself up by putting other people down. It makes you feel like you are superior to them, doesn't it? Try learning some civil discourse.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous7:28 AM

      @4:52 Wilson 'lost his job' for his actions.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous7:47 AM

      7:28 Wilson voluntarily resigned to help heal the community that he dutifully served with no complaints for 6 years. In the aftermath of the circus stirred up by Sharpton and all the race baiters, it would obviously have been next to impossible to return to duty.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous12:12 PM

      agreed - Officer Wilson knew that Michael Brown and he were almost the EXACT SAME SIZE.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous8:43 PM

      They may have been similar height, but that is NOT the same as size.

      Delete
  11. Anonymous4:10 PM

    That's how I remember the initial media reports, both TV and radio. The officer did NOT KNOW anything about a robbery, had no description and was not told to respond because he was in the area. He was ignorant of it all. Turns out he's just ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous4:31 PM

    NO kidding.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Your update paragraph is full of nothing but speculation, We all know that you see yourself as the defender of the underdog, and have seen and done pretty much anything. You're on the wrong side in this one. You just don't have the analytic intellect to figure this one out. Go back to diagnosing the Palins and talking about yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:42 PM

      I guess we should all bow to YOUR analytic intellect, DGM.

      Delete
    2. I never said that, but it you want that's fine.

      Delete
  14. Anonymous4:49 PM

    Damn, what a bunch of Nancy Grace wannabes. The Grand Jury made it's decision with ALL the information that was available. You make yours with crap that Gryphen and all the other politically correct whiners throw out there. I'd like to see just one of you spend a night on patrol anywhere, let alone in Ferguson.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:34 PM

      You're full of shit. Have YOU spent a night on patrol? I have. I'm a retired cop. Cops have a habit of developing a Us vs Them mentality. When that happens you have no business carrying a weapon and patrolling communities you were hired to protect.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous5:41 PM

      4:49 Are you Captain America, the savior of all citizens?
      Mr Super cop? Stop with your self promotion, you are not the only cop out there. If you have any experience in the field, you know that there are several incompetent cops on the street.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous6:43 PM

      5:34 is completely right. To some extent, this us vs. them attitude is a natural consequence of possible danger at every domestic call or traffic stop.

      Some police officer also really, really don't like getting disrespect from citizens, especially certain kinds of citizens (young men in general, and for some officers, black young men in particular). All of this is supported by empirical research into the mindset and informal training of LEOs.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous10:30 PM

      5:34 PM There are many of us who feel the same as you do.

      Delete
    5. This is 4:49. Yes I have spent a night on patrol, 20 years of them in fact. 5:41 and 5:34 are right there are cops out there that shouldn't be. What I saying is the media and bloggers like Gryphen just fan the flames when they put information out that is just speculation. I don't know about you but I worked off of facts during my career, you can't get it wrong that way. That is what the Grand Jury did.

      Delete
  15. Anonymous5:01 PM

    I heard, and I haven't confirmed it but maybe someone else has the time, that Officer Wilson was formerly employed as part a a police dept that was essentially shutdown by the justice dept. Where everyone was fired and only those not involved with racist incidences were rehired and Wilson was not a rehire.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:05 PM

      Yeah, but why not just spread your unconfirmed bullshit out there farther right 5:01?

      Delete
    2. "FERGUSON, Mo. — The small city of Jennings, Mo., had a police department so troubled, and with so much tension between white officers and black residents, that the city council finally decided to disband it. Everyone in the Jennings police department was fired. New officers were brought in to create a credible department from scratch.

      That was three years ago. One of the officers who worked in that department, and lost his job along with everyone else, was a young man named Darren Wilson.

      Some of the Jennings officers reapplied for their jobs, but Wilson got a job in the police department in the nearby city of Ferguson."

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

      Delete
    3. Anonymous5:40 PM

      5:05 PM
      "Yeah, but why not just spread your unconfirmed bullshit out there farther right 5:01?"

      Here ya go, 5:05 PM, here's a link to one of the MANY stories confirming that Darren Wilson worked for the Jennings PD before it was disbanded because it was so corrupt and made so many bad judgments while handling the oh-so-scary blacks in Jennings. Several officers were rehired when they re-applied. Wilson didn't reapply, instead went to Ferguson. (Good career move on his part, he's now wealthy and a celebrity like George Zimmerman).

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

      Delete
    4. Anonymous5:48 PM

      August 24, 2014 Washington Post and the Jennings police force shut-down

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

      This should help, if you're a reader.

      dowl

      Delete
    5. Ailsa6:04 PM

      Cop Who Killed Michael Brown Formerly Worked for Police Dept. Disbanded for Racism, Corruption

      Darren Wilson’s first police job was in the small town of Jennings, MO–and the police department had such a troubled history with racial tensions between white officers and black residents that the city eventually disbanded it. Three years ago, every single officer–including Wilson–was fired, and new people were hired in an effort to regain credibility with residents.

      http://aattp.org/cop-who-killed-michael-brown-formerly-worked-for-police-dept-disbanded-for-racism-corruption/

      Delete
    6. Anonymous6:34 PM

      Thats right, he was on a department that was disbanded, that does not speak anything about him directly. He also had no complaints in his years with Ferguson. Keep projecting you morons and keep getting called on your BS.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous10:24 PM

      6:34 PM Are you sucking Wilson's D**k?

      Delete
    8. Anonymous4:21 AM

      Facts are a pesky thing, aren't they 5:05 !

      Delete
    9. Anonymous6:32 AM

      Yes facts are a pesky thing for the liberal lies at IM 4:21 am.

      The original poster made a vague claim that isn't factual. Wilson was part of the Jennings PD, his first police job... the department was shut down.... but Wilson was one of the officers that was allowed to re-apply for a job and he had no complaints there either. He instead chose to take a job with Ferguson, where he also had no complaints during his tenure. Go suck your own dick 10:24. Why are you morons so afraid of the truth?

      Delete
    10. Anonymous7:22 AM

      BWAHAHAHAHA, the truth is not acceptable by you,
      6:32. Wilson is your hero, assclown.

      Delete
    11. Anonymous7:50 AM

      The truth that Wilson was not part of the problem at Jennings 7:22? The fact that he was one of the officers that was allowed to stay on the force there? What part about the truth do you not get? Nobody is my hero. But I don't make hero's out of criminals like Michael Brown.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous11:26 AM

      No, 7:50 AM You make heroes out of LIARS.

      Delete
    13. Anonymous12:26 PM

      Sure 11:26.

      Delete
  16. Thank you, Gryphen.

    May Michael Brown receive justice and his family receive consolation and compensation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:37 PM

      Don't forget Sharpton, may he also get his big windfall of ju$tice!

      Hopefully his stepfather will also receive the cold justice of hard time for inciting arson and riots.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous10:22 PM

      5:37 PM May the young adults in San Diego who beat a homeless man to death and wounded another receive Justice as well.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous10:55 PM

      May the young (minority) kids who beat a (white) Bosnian man to death with hammers just a couple days ago in Saint Louis also receive swift justice, and we will all be waiting on Holder to open a federal hate crime investigation (and Gryph to be reporting on).

      May the killer(s) of a young black man killed and set on fire in a car in Ferguson during the riots also have his murderers brought to justice posthaste. There are rumors that he was one of the black witnesses that collaborated Wilson's version of events. To be clear- it is just a rumor at this point.

      Hoping that every one of the looters and rioters who caused any type of damage can be identified and be brought before the law. And definitely the stepfather should be held accountable with the most extreme charges possible for inciting riots.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous11:45 AM

      May a retired Police Officer who spent 20 years oppressing minorities instead of solving problems stay away from this blog.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous12:25 PM

      Hoping that retired officer DGM definitely stays and contributes. These boards can use some reality check from people like DGM with real world experience to counterbalance the fantasy world you guys live in. Maybe some of you will learn something.

      Delete
  17. Ailsa6:10 PM

    Justice Scalia Explains What Was Wrong With The Ferguson Grand Jury

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous6:31 PM

      Nice try with your bullshit Alisa. But Scalia has not said one word about Ferguson. Posting on a ruling from a 92 case has no bearing on this whatsoever. Spread your bullshit elsewhere.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous7:09 PM

      Alisa posted the title of the article and a link. Did you actually read it? Scalia hasn't said anything about Ferguson, but his comments in that 1992 has a lot to say about the Grand Jury decision in the Wilson/Brown case. If you disagree with the article's thesis, how about you tell us exactly why?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous7:41 PM

      *on that case

      Delete
    4. Ailsa7:45 PM

      Exactly right, 7:09.

      I think the title may tend to mislead those who did not read or did not understand the article.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous7:50 PM

      Well maybe start with the misleading title for the article that no-one will follow up on and read 7:09. Alisa probably didn't even read it, she probably just read the misleading title. What will be interesting is if, down the line Scalia has anything to say about his statements being misused. He will probably be silent on it for the foreseeable future until there is closure on all legal fronts.

      Delete
    6. Ailsa8:38 PM

      Justice Scalia was making a general statement about the function of a Grand Jury - any Grand Jury.

      The purpose and the laws of evidence and procedure differ between a Grand Jury and a trial. The purpose of a Grand Jury is not to determine guilt or innocence. They are charged only with conducting an investigation into whether or not the conduct of a person in a certain set of circumstances warrants a trial. There is no judge, no defense lawyer, only a prosecutor. The jury is not there to decide guilt or innocence. Thus Justice Scalia states: "It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made"

      When someone is indicted of a crime, the criminal trial employs an adversarial system of law that relies on the contest between each legal counsel, the prosecution and the defense. A judge or a jury decides guilt or innocence.

      Laws of evidence and procedure hold true for Grand Juries and trials in 1992 and 2014.

      In this case, there are serious legal concerns about the procedure in the Ferguson Grand Jury. Beyond that, I would suggest the mere fact that the witnesses were, as someone said, “all over the place” is a reason to have a trial, where these witnesses can be cross-examined and greater clarity can be obtained.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous10:13 PM

      The case for this old ruling is not compatible/comparable to the Ferguson grand jury case by a long stretch. Besides the very different nature of the cases or 'purported' crimes, the arguement by the defendent was that exculpary evidence had not been introduced and should have been- the Ferguson arguement would be flip flop of that, but it is also just not that black and white. Grand juries really don't have set rules and they are not generally ruled by the courts. Very unique situations can be cause for unique grand jury deliberations, which can be rare, but that doesn't mean they are wrong or right. Back to the issue- using some old case, which in no way resembles this case, and picking some little bit out of the whole package, and holding it up stating that 'Scalia has explained' something about this case is lying and misleading.

      Delete
    8. Yes, this is the crux of the whole debate here, I think.

      In United States v. Williams (1992), the Supreme Court reversed a ruling by the Federal District Court which overturned William's indictment because they held that the prosecution failed to present “substantial exculpatory evidence”.

      In the Court’s opinion, given by Justice Scalia: "[R]equiring the prosecutor to present exculpatory as well as inculpatory evidence would alter the grand jury’s historical role, transforming it from an accusatory body that sits to assess whether there is adequate basis for bringing a criminal charge into an adjudicatory body that sits to determine guilt or innocence. Because it has always been thought sufficient for the grand jury to hear only the prosecutor’s side, and, consequently that the suspect has no right to present, and the grand jury no obligation to consider, exculpatory evidence, it would be incompatible with the traditional system to impose upon the prosecutor a legal obligation to present such evidence.”

      I agree, what this says is the prosecution cannot be required or obligated to present exculpatory evidence and this, in part because the grand jury’s role is not to determine guilt or innocence, but only to decide whether there is sufficient evidence of a crime that a conviction is possible. Undoubtedly there is nothing here that says the prosecutor cannot present exculpatory evidence.

      The issue In Wilson, reading the transcript, is that the prosecutor appears the have given Wilson a great deal more process than most defendants get, so much in fact it may have indeed changed the Ferguson Grand Jury from an accusatory to an adjudicatory body.

      This is why people are quoting parts of Scalia’s opinion, I believe, to make the greater point about the purpose of the Grand Jury and voice concern that the prosecutor may have set out to ensure there would be no indictment. And yes, there may well be a better case to quote.

      Delete
  18. Anonymous8:48 PM

    And then the plan is to get cameras. But there was a camera show the beating of Rodney and still the police didn't get as much punishment they deserved. Just put the money in giving every young black boy a bullet proof vest snf other things.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thanks, Gryphen, for trying to get the facts out. I remembered the police officer saying Wilson did not know about the alleged robbery and wondered why no one mentioned that. I also remembered that, early on, they were talking about Wilson being such a good cop because he had recently received a commendation - turns out it was for grabbing a suspect through his window while Wilson remained seated in his car until back-up arrived.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AKRNC2:38 AM

      Do you remember where you read or heard about Wilson using what could be determined to be similar behavior that he used with Brown? If it worked before, he was likely to try it again.

      Delete
  20. Anonymous5:54 AM

    That statement by the watch commander was all over the news by the second or third day after the shooting.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous9:35 AM

    NBC Legal Analyst Goes off on Scarborough: ‘Show Some Respect’
    http://www.mediaite.com/online/nbc-legal-analyst-goes-off-on-scarborough-show-some-respect/

    Documents Released in the Ferguson Case
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/evidence-released-in-michael-brown-case.html?_r=1

    NBC Legal Analyst Lisa Bloom Goes off on Scarborough: ‘Show Some Respect’
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM3ewJOFr1c

    https://twitter.com/LisaBloom/status/540001452861571072

    http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/fight-620x620.jpg


    ReplyDelete

Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.