Ferguson Live Feed

[ksen]

Man, if only there had been a trial to fully air out what happened.

 

[Angry Floof]

32 year old Bosnian (who are white) was brutally murdered by a hispanic and a black teenager in St. Louis.
Man dies after being struck by hammers

Is Irrev. Al Sharpton going to comment on this? How about Obama? Or even the St. Louis Rams?

Suspects are in custody. And, of course, the suspects are not police officers. So the point of this is.....?

The point is that you just don't hate brown people enough. You can see what terrible human beings they are. They're violent and stuff, and white people aren't, or they're not as violent, or something that makes white people and cops the good guys and brown people the bad guys. You need to amp up the bigotry so you can see this more clearly.

 

[marc]

Now what if a black cop killed an unarmed white teenager under very questionable circumstances, and was never investigated. What would supporters of various police shootings say? Would racism or authoritarianism prove to be the stronger basis for which way they would swing?

 

[Trausti]

Now what if a black cop killed an unarmed white teenager under very questionable circumstances, and was never investigated. What would supporters of various police shootings say? Would racism or authoritarianism prove to be the stronger basis for which way they would swing?

It did happen, in a way. But because the cop was black and the victim white, the social justice warriors apparently didn't care much about it. http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/12/washington_times_contrasts_med.html

 

[maxparrish]

It’s Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson’s Just Did

On the other hand, it's incredibly common for supposedly intelligent writers to make incredibly stupid arguments - and equally common for them to be regurgitated by the true believer as serious.

Yes, it is incredibly rare for grand juries not to indict, so the racialists chattering their "confirming bias" that this proves something nefarious about the prosecution. For those uninfected by racialism, it could also mean:

- As it is very rare for shootings by cops to go to grand juries, it means the prosecutor must have been motivated by bias against the cop and should never have gone to the grand jury to begin with.

- As grand juries rarely refuse to indict, when they do refuse, the object of investigation must have been unquestionably not guilty.

- As it is rare that cops even go to trial for shootings, the fact that this this one did not go to trial only confirms that it was a fair process.

If the commonality or the rarity of an event is supposed to determine the "truth" of a specific event, then you can invent and spin "truth" in many ways, no?

However, the most serious "incredible stupidity" was the author's failure to measure the number of cases where an individual (or police) shooting does not even go to a grand jury because the prosecutor believes the evidence for a crime is weak, contradictory, or non-existent - so weak that the prosecutor does not even have probable cause for an arrest.

So why did the prosecutor take a case to the Grand Jury that he did not believe to meet the benchmark of probable cause? Because of the race inflammed controversy - he did so not as an advocate for the indictment demanding lynch mob, but to give prosecutorial discretion to the grand jurors.

So in his attempt to 'be fair' and to not kill the case outright, the nutroots are yelling that he should not gone to a grand jury UNLESS he was convinced their was probable cause and he was willing aggressively pursue an indictment.

Perhaps not - he was damned anyway.

 

[ksen]

St. Louis cops demand that Rams players be punished for “Hands up, don’t shoot” entrance

The statement reads:


The SLPOA is calling for the players involved to be disciplined and for the Rams and the NFL to deliver a very public apology. [SLPOA Business Manager Jeff] Roorda said he planned to speak to the NFL and the Rams to voice his organization’s displeasure tomorrow. He also plans to reach out to other police organizations in St. Louis and around the country to enlist their input on what the appropriate response from law enforcement should be. Roorda warned, “I know that there are those that will say that these players are simply exercising their First Amendment rights. Well I’ve got news for people who think that way, cops have first amendment rights too, and we plan to exercise ours. I’d remind the NFL and their players that it is not the violent thugs burning down buildings that buy their advertiser’s products. It’s cops and the good people of St. Louis and other NFL towns that do. Somebody needs to throw a flag on this play. If it’s not the NFL and the Rams, then it’ll be cops and their supporters.

sounds like a threat to me

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Now what if a black cop killed an unarmed white teenager under very questionable circumstances, and was never investigated. What would supporters of various police shootings say? Would racism or authoritarianism prove to be the stronger basis for which way they would swing?

It did happen, in a way. But because the cop was black and the victim white, the social justice warriors apparently didn't care much about it. http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/12/washington_times_contrasts_med.html

I have a question (well several actually)

How do you think the media works? That they just show up when ever a black man is killed? And protests, do marches just spontaneously take place? Who has pushed and how hard have they pushed for answers and justice?

How hard would you push against a system you trusted? How much moral outrage could you drum up against a police shooting when you feel you should support the police?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

This result has not been unexpected, as the overwhelming weight of both the eye witness and forensic evidence has been entirely consistent with Officer Wilson’s narrative of self-defense, including:

- Wilson being attacked by Brown and his accomplice Dorian Johnson in his patrol vehicle
- a struggle over Wilson’s service pistol
- shots fired inside the vehicle (which forensic examination confirmed caused a contact gun shot wound to Brown’s right hand)
- the temporary flight of Brown upon those initial gunshots
- the return of the 292 pound Brown re-engage the much smaller officer
- the firing of additional defensive rounds as necessary to halt Brown’s violence

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/1...o-indictment-in-michael-brown-shooting//#more

There are certainly easier ways to randomly execute unarmed "gentle giants".

You do know that the contact wound was misreported and that Dorian Johnson's testimony states that no attack occurred.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...uson-documents-what-michael-browns-friend-saw

Oh and your legal link has an admitted conservative agenda. Not just bias, agenda:

Legal Insurrection now is one of the most widely cited and influential conservative websites, with hundreds of thousands of visitors per month. Our work has been highlighted by top conservative radio personalities, such as Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, and Professor Jacobson regularly appears as a guest on radio shows across the nation.

And therefore it they point out that the sun rises in the east, we should scream bias?

It could also be just plain old stupidity, but we'll give this guy the benefit of the doubt that he has a political agenda. Which he states he does have. The site is run by a securities lawyer who wants to be a big shot in Republican politics. You'll notice how we pointed out the errors and fabrications throughout this thread. Including the outright misquoting in the press of the Medical Examiner who had to go public and correct the record. You site that brings this up but fails to correct the erroneous information. That's either due to his political agenda or stupidity.

- - - Updated - - -

The DA seeks an indictment when he has probable cause and believes a person to be guilty. For someone who claims to support civil rights, I can't think of a more illiberal and reactionary view than the ones you just expressed. I was unable to find (or fathom) where on earth you got the benighted and legally primitive view that the fundamental goal of State prosecutors is "vigorously seeking victory" regardless of merit or justice. Just so you know, American law's ethical requirements for prosecutors is a tad more than that of the Church's Grand Inquisitor Torquemada or the Stalin's Vyshinsky:...

Nor was he interest in finding facts. Giving Wilson the opportunity of a soliloquy is not fact finding.

LOL...in case you were not aware, he is a witness as well. And yep, under the law if the Grand Jury wants to hear his side of the story they can request it. He could, like many, have refused it but he appeared without a lawyer and answered their questions.

You finished Max?

There is only one ringmaster in the circus known as the grand jury. That is the prosecutor. And unless he wants something to happen, it does not happen unless he is the most incompetent boob in history.

You wiil not disprove that because you can't.

NEXT

You mean unless the prosecutor wants to indict a ham sandwich, it does not happen? Well yes Athena, that was the point. Rather than charge someone who did not meet the standard of probable cause, he let a grand jury decide. Perhaps you have a serious point beyond your expectation that anytime a white cop shoots and kills a black man the white cop must also be charged and convicted of murder, regardless of the evidence?

If not, then all you are doing is promoting a black racialist meme. Discussions based on principled stands of law, justice, or rights are pointless. "Me hate white cops" or "me hate Negros" is not really amenable to reason - it is little more than knuckle dragging tribalism.

Perhaps you missed Nate Silver's data?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

Statistics show Athena is correct.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Darren Wilson resigns



If Wilson did nothing wrong then how is this the right decision?

I think the claim is that his presence in the department brings undue attention and criticism to the department and the work it is trying to do. Even if he did no wrong, the perception that he did can bring negative consequences should his presence continue in his current position. I'm not saying that I believe he did no wrong, but there is merit in the argument.

Yeah, he's never going to be able to be out with the public again.

 

[Rhea]

- As it is very rare for shootings by cops to go to grand juries, it means the prosecutor must have been motivated by bias against the cop and should never have gone to the grand jury to begin with.

What is your source for saying it is rare, and what happens instead?
If the "instead" is a regular public jury, then wouldn't getting the cop away from a trial be easier through the Grnad Jury where there is not another lawyer to introduce additional information?

- As grand juries rarely refuse to indict, when they do refuse, the object of investigation must have been unquestionably not guilty.

Why? Why can't it be because the only attorney present didn't choose to provide damning information?

- As it is rare that cops even go to trial for shootings, the fact that this this one did not go to trial only confirms that it was a fair process.

Oh. That's what happens instead.

except as noted above, it went to the one route most available for sandbagging. And it has significant public pressure to go to a jury. So this was the least accountable way to do that. It is the one route that would be consistent with _having_ to go to a trial but not wanting to, really.

If the commonality or the rarity of an event is supposed to determine the "truth" of a specific event, then you can invent and spin "truth" in many ways, no?

Not in a vacuum, no. That's an oversimplification. In cases before courts, when some extremely unusual steps are taken, the reasons for that need to be articulated. This isn't a rarity of "chance", like how rare it is to throw double sixes four times running. This is a rare occurence of deliberate actions. And they demand an explanation.

However, the most serious "incredible stupidity" was the author's failure to measure the number of cases where an individual (or police) shooting does not even go to a grand jury because the prosecutor believes the evidence for a crime is weak, contradictory, or non-existent - so weak that the prosecutor does not even have probable cause for an arrest.

How does this statement weed out all of the cases in which the case doesn't go to trial because the prosecutor doesn't want to prosecute cops, and can get away with it because it is not highly publicized and s/he can just sweep it under a rug? Unless you can weed out those cases, the fact of most cop killings not going to trial at all does not exonerate the cops in any way.

So why did the prosecutor take a case to the Grand Jury that he did not believe to meet the benchmark of probable cause? Because of the race inflammed controversy - he did so not as an advocate for the indictment demanding lynch mob, but to give prosecutorial discretion to the grand jurors.

And to himself, yes, you nailed it. He knew there was public outrage and demand for justice and he could do an end-run around it by sandbagging the evidence and making the grand jury take the blame.

So in his attempt to 'be fair' and to not kill the case outright,

There is no evidence that this was done in an attempt at fairness.

the nutroots are yelling that he should not gone to a grand jury UNLESS he was convinced their was probable cause and he was willing aggressively pursue an indictment.

wrong, the people are claiming that he should have done a decent job presenting to the grand jury, and that it shouldn't have been a grand jury in the first place, but a trial where people could be sure the decent job was being done instead of just getting a transcript after the fact that was obviously full of dump-truck sized holes.

Perhaps not - he was damned anyway.

The case is damning. He should have taken that seriously and objectively. It looks a lot like he did not.

 

[Rhea]

St. Louis cops demand that Rams players be punished for “Hands up, don’t shoot” entrance

The statement reads:


The SLPOA is calling for the players involved to be disciplined and for the Rams and the NFL to deliver a very public apology. [SLPOA Business Manager Jeff] Roorda said he planned to speak to the NFL and the Rams to voice his organization’s displeasure tomorrow. He also plans to reach out to other police organizations in St. Louis and around the country to enlist their input on what the appropriate response from law enforcement should be. Roorda warned, “I know that there are those that will say that these players are simply exercising their First Amendment rights. Well I’ve got news for people who think that way, cops have first amendment rights too, and we plan to exercise ours. I’d remind the NFL and their players that it is not the violent thugs burning down buildings that buy their advertiser’s products. It’s cops and the good people of St. Louis and other NFL towns that do. Somebody needs to throw a flag on this play. If it’s not the NFL and the Rams, then it’ll be cops and their supporters.

sounds like a threat to me

He doesn't appear to understand the first amendment rights of those players. or the message.
He is saying much more about himself than about the players. Bullhorn announcement - "I think the ones seeking justice and the ones burning buildings are all the same thuggish people. I cannot discern. There was nothing wrong that happened here!"

 

[doubtingt]

St. Louis cops demand that Rams players be punished for “Hands up, don’t shoot” entrance

The statement reads:


The SLPOA is calling for the players involved to be disciplined and for the Rams and the NFL to deliver a very public apology. [SLPOA Business Manager Jeff] Roorda said he planned to speak to the NFL and the Rams to voice his organization’s displeasure tomorrow. He also plans to reach out to other police organizations in St. Louis and around the country to enlist their input on what the appropriate response from law enforcement should be. Roorda warned, “I know that there are those that will say that these players are simply exercising their First Amendment rights. Well I’ve got news for people who think that way, cops have first amendment rights too, and we plan to exercise ours. I’d remind the NFL and their players that it is not the violent thugs burning down buildings that buy their advertiser’s products. It’s cops and the good people of St. Louis and other NFL towns that do. Somebody needs to throw a flag on this play. If it’s not the NFL and the Rams, then it’ll be cops and their supporters.

sounds like a threat to me

Actually, he makes it clear that it is nothing more than a threat to exercise their speech and consumer rights.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Darren Wilson resigns

"Whether officially his license is removed or unofficially, I think it would be very unlikely that he'll ever seek law enforcement again, unless it's in a private manner," former Ferguson mayor Brian Fletcher told the radio station. "He's had a chance to think about this. For everybody's sake, both the community and Darren Wilson's sake and the Brown family, I think he's made the right decision."

If Wilson did nothing wrong then how is this the right decision?

It wouldn't be safe for him to patrol there at this point.

 

[maxparrish]

Johnson didn't attack anyone, so no there was no overwhelming eye witness or forensic evidence saying he did.

That may or may not be true - I understand that Wilson's DNA was found on the bracelet worn by Johnson.

- a struggle over Wilson’s service pistol

Which forensic evidence was that? What overwhelming eye witness testimony? All we have is Wilson's word for it since he never turned his service weapon in to be examined by forensics.

DNA of Brown on his pistol. Wilson testimony. Consistent with Witness 10 sight of struggle, with Brown bent at waist and inside driver window.

- the return of the 292 pound Brown re-engage the much smaller officer

No, Wilson and Brown were almost the same size. Wilson was not "much smaller" than Brown.

Officer is 200lbs, Brown nearly 300lbs. Obvious size difference as Brown is 50% bigger (which is not the same as height).

- the firing of additional defensive rounds as necessary to halt Brown’s violence

"As necessary" no, there is no forensic evidence or overwhelming eye witness testimony suggesting those shots were necessary.

Witness 10.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/1...o-indictment-in-michael-brown-shooting//#more

There are certainly easier ways to randomly execute unarmed "gentle giants".

Not surprised your racist legal website got it wrong so many times.

Dorian Johnson recounts the last day of Michael Brown.

LOL...you mean the convicted liar? You mean the buddy (assisting shoplifter) 'witness' that said Brown was shot in the back? You mean the same guy who said Brown was merely turned round and put his hands up?

So other than the fact that the blood trail that shows he came back 21 feet, and that Brown was not shot in the back, the guys honest?

 

[maxparrish]

This result has not been unexpected, as the overwhelming weight of both the eye witness and forensic evidence has been entirely consistent with Officer Wilson’s narrative of self-defense, including:

- Wilson being attacked by Brown and his accomplice Dorian Johnson in his patrol vehicle
- a struggle over Wilson’s service pistol
- shots fired inside the vehicle (which forensic examination confirmed caused a contact gun shot wound to Brown’s right hand)
- the temporary flight of Brown upon those initial gunshots
- the return of the 292 pound Brown re-engage the much smaller officer
- the firing of additional defensive rounds as necessary to halt Brown’s violence

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/1...o-indictment-in-michael-brown-shooting//#more

There are certainly easier ways to randomly execute unarmed "gentle giants".

You do know that the contact wound was misreported and that Dorian Johnson's testimony states that no attack occurred.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...uson-documents-what-michael-browns-friend-saw

Oh and your legal link has an admitted conservative agenda. Not just bias, agenda:

Legal Insurrection now is one of the most widely cited and influential conservative websites, with hundreds of thousands of visitors per month. Our work has been highlighted by top conservative radio personalities, such as Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, and Professor Jacobson regularly appears as a guest on radio shows across the nation.

And therefore it they point out that the sun rises in the east, we should scream bias?

It could also be just plain old stupidity, but we'll give this guy the benefit of the doubt that he has a political agenda. Which he states he does have. The site is run by a securities lawyer who wants to be a big shot in Republican politics. You'll notice how we pointed out the errors and fabrications throughout this thread. Including the outright misquoting in the press of the Medical Examiner who had to go public and correct the record. You site that brings this up but fails to correct the erroneous information. That's either due to his political agenda or stupidity.

Yes, he honestly confesses he has a conservative point of view on most issues, and that means if he says the sun cannot rise in the east because of his bias, how?

Given that you just cited that the blog is run by a Law professor, and then obliviously hand-waved about "a security lawyer who wants to be a big shot in Republican politics", your other lurid pronouncements will require a supporting cite.

- - - Updated - - -

The DA seeks an indictment when he has probable cause and believes a person to be guilty. For someone who claims to support civil rights, I can't think of a more illiberal and reactionary view than the ones you just expressed. I was unable to find (or fathom) where on earth you got the benighted and legally primitive view that the fundamental goal of State prosecutors is "vigorously seeking victory" regardless of merit or justice. Just so you know, American law's ethical requirements for prosecutors is a tad more than that of the Church's Grand Inquisitor Torquemada or the Stalin's Vyshinsky:...

Nor was he interest in finding facts. Giving Wilson the opportunity of a soliloquy is not fact finding.

LOL...in case you were not aware, he is a witness as well. And yep, under the law if the Grand Jury wants to hear his side of the story they can request it. He could, like many, have refused it but he appeared without a lawyer and answered their questions.

You finished Max?

There is only one ringmaster in the circus known as the grand jury. That is the prosecutor. And unless he wants something to happen, it does not happen unless he is the most incompetent boob in history.

You wiil not disprove that because you can't.

NEXT

You mean unless the prosecutor wants to indict a ham sandwich, it does not happen? Well yes Athena, that was the point. Rather than charge someone who did not meet the standard of probable cause, he let a grand jury decide. Perhaps you have a serious point beyond your expectation that anytime a white cop shoots and kills a black man the white cop must also be charged and convicted of murder, regardless of the evidence?

If not, then all you are doing is promoting a black racialist meme. Discussions based on principled stands of law, justice, or rights are pointless. "Me hate white cops" or "me hate Negros" is not really amenable to reason - it is little more than knuckle dragging tribalism.

Perhaps you missed Nate Silver's data?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

Statistics show Athena is correct.

Perhaps you didn't understand my point. The statistics were irrelevant. You might as well as ask if I had seen the statistics on hemlines and sunspots, if presenting accurate but irrelevant statistics is your point.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Johnson didn't attack anyone, so no there was no overwhelming eye witness or forensic evidence saying he did.

That may or may not be true - I understand that Wilson's DNA was found on the bracelet worn by Johnson.

Source please.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I didn't say she was incorrect, did I? I said the statistics are meaningless. She might as well as quoted the statistics on hemlines and sunspots, if accurate but irrelevant numbers are part of someones "point".

So statistics showing that grad juries always find probably cause except in cases of law enforcement shootings where they rarely do is a meaningless statistic. Nice.

 

[ksen]

Johnson didn't attack anyone, so no there was no overwhelming eye witness or forensic evidence saying he did.

That may or may not be true - I understand that Wilson's DNA was found on the bracelet worn by Johnson.

"You understand" =/= "overwhelming eye witness testimony or forensic evidence"

- a struggle over Wilson’s service pistol

Which forensic evidence was that? What overwhelming eye witness testimony? All we have is Wilson's word for it since he never turned his service weapon in to be examined by forensics.

DNA of Brown on his pistol. Wilson testimony. Consistent with Witness 10 sight of struggle, with Brown bent at waist and inside driver window.

Brown's DNA on the gun could have been blood spatter from the shot and is not overwhelming evidence that Brown was trying to get Wilson's gun.

- the return of the 292 pound Brown re-engage the much smaller officer

No, Wilson and Brown were almost the same size. Wilson was not "much smaller" than Brown.

Officer is 200lbs, Brown nearly 300lbs. Obvious size difference as Brown is 50% bigger (which is not the same as height).

Wilson is 210 pounds and Brown was 292 pounds. That's not a 50% differential but thanks for rounding Wilson's size down and Brown's size up. No bias there.

- the firing of additional defensive rounds as necessary to halt Brown’s violence

"As necessary" no, there is no forensic evidence or overwhelming eye witness testimony suggesting those shots were necessary.

Witness 10.

One witness was able to determine that Wilson's shots were "necessary?" And that's the standard for "overwhelming eye witness and forensic evidence?" You're not setting that bar very high.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/1...o-indictment-in-michael-brown-shooting//#more

There are certainly easier ways to randomly execute unarmed "gentle giants".

Not surprised your racist legal website got it wrong so many times.

Dorian Johnson recounts the last day of Michael Brown.

LOL...you mean the convicted liar? You mean the buddy (assisting shoplifter) 'witness' that said Brown was shot in the back? You mean the same guy who said Brown was merely turned round and put his hands up?

Video surveillance tapes not shown by the police appear to show Michael Brown paying for his cigarellos.

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/ferguson-cops-busted-new-video-seems-show

While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video appears to show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the amount he wished to buy. Brown seems to purchase some cigarillos, pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not afford.

The confrontation between Brown and the clerk may have been because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. Perhaps it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage seems to exonerate him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him.

In any case, neither the employee nor the store owner called law enforcement–something that would surely happen if Brown committed a "strong-arm robbery."

So, what shoplifting?

So other than the fact that the blood trail that shows he came back 21 feet, and that Brown was not shot in the back, the guys honest?

Johnson never said Brown was shot in the back.

 

[Trausti]

Video surveillance tapes not shown by the police appear to show Michael Brown paying for his cigarellos.

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/ferguson-cops-busted-new-video-seems-show

While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video appears to show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the amount he wished to buy. Brown seems to purchase some cigarillos, pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not afford.

The confrontation between Brown and the clerk may have been because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. Perhaps it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage seems to exonerate him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him.

In any case, neither the employee nor the store owner called law enforcement–something that would surely happen if Brown committed a "strong-arm robbery."

So, what shoplifting?

So other than the fact that the blood trail that shows he came back 21 feet, and that Brown was not shot in the back, the guys honest?

Johnson never said Brown was shot in the back.

Eh, Johnson's testimony confirmed that Brown stole the cigarellos. He claims he tried talking Brown out of it because the store had surveillance cameras. But Brown apparently was unmoved and seemed not to care about the repercussions of his actions. Johnson said that Brown acted strange that day. He couldn't understand why Brown chose to fight the cop rather than cooperate. Johnson's testimony is an illuminating read.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Video surveillance tapes not shown by the police appear to show Michael Brown paying for his cigarellos.

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/ferguson-cops-busted-new-video-seems-show



So, what shoplifting?

So other than the fact that the blood trail that shows he came back 21 feet, and that Brown was not shot in the back, the guys honest?

Johnson never said Brown was shot in the back.

Eh, Johnson's testimony confirmed that Brown stole the cigarellos. He claims he tried talking Brown out of it because the store had surveillance cameras. But Brown apparently was unmoved and seemed not to care about the repercussions of his actions. Johnson said that Brown acted strange that day. He couldn't understand why Brown chose to fight the cop rather than cooperate. Johnson's testimony is an illuminating read.

What exactly do the cigarellos have to do with Wilson killing Brown, since Wilson had no knowledge of the theft? Johnson's testimony also puts Brown outside of the car and surrendering when the fatal shots were fired.

Johnson testified that on their walk back home, Brown had the cigarillos in his hands in plain sight and that two Ferguson police cars passed them, but did not stop.[84] When Wilson encountered them, he told the two to "get the fuck on the sidewalk" and Johnson told him they would be off the street shortly as they were close to their destination.[85] Johnson testifed that Wilson was the aggressor from the beginning and that for no apparent reason, he backed his vehicle up and tried to open his door, but Brown shut it, preventing him from getting out.[85] Johnson said that Wilson then reached out and grabbed Brown by the neck and the two were engaged in a "tug of war", and Wilson said "I'll shoot". Johnson said he never saw Brown hit Wilson and didn't think Brown grabbed for Wilson's gun, but that a shot was fired.[86][85] At that point, Johnson said they both ran and Wilson fired while Brown was running away, and that Brown turned around and "at that time Big Mike's hands was up, but not so much in the air, because he had been struck".[86] Johnson told the jurors that Brown said "I don't have a gun" and that he was mad and tried to say again "I don't have a gun", but "before he can say the second sentence or before he can even get it out, that's when the several more shots came." In his testimony, Johnson maintained that Brown did not run at Wilson prior to the fatal shots.[86]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Dorian_Johnson

In for a penny in for a pound.