Brown moved ~25 feet toward Wilson judging from the blood.
21.6 feet, actually, according to the
DOJ report:
Brown’s blood in the roadway demonstrates that Brown came forward at least 21.6 feet from the time he turned around toward Wilson.
And the crime scene detectives:
...noted apparent blood in the roadway approximately 17 feet and 22 feet east of where Brown’s body was found and east of the casings that were recovered, consistent with Brown moving toward Wilson before his death.
So, exactly two locations.
That's not "more or less in place".
Actually, it is. First, here's what the DOJ report stated regarding Brown being hit in the back:
The evidence does not support concluding that Wilson shot Brown while Brown’s back was toward Wilson. Witnesses, such as Witness 118, Witness 128, Witness 139 and others, who claim to have seen Wilson fire directly into Brown’s back, gave accounts that lack credibility because the physical evidence establishes that there were no entry wounds to Brown’s back, although there was a wound to the anatomical back of Brown’s right arm, and a graze wound to Brown’s right arm.
See what they did? They concluded that the various witness accounts of Brown being shot in the back where not reliable because the autopsy showed he wasn't shot in the back, but to anyone watching from the sidelines someone running away from a cop who then gets shot in the back of the arm--and the bullet goes straight through, after shattering a fucking bone--seeing that person jerk from being hit (as Johnson described it) and then stop would naturally assume that he had been shot in the back. They would be technically incorrect, of course, but not incorrect in making that logical assumption. Guy is running away, cop fires, guy jerks when hit and stops, logical assumption is he got hit in his back as that's the largest part of the body and no one has bionic eyes that could pinpoint a bullet flying or exactly where it hit someone, particularly if it went through his arm. Here's the autopsy description as relayed in the DOJ report:
The remaining gunshot wounds were also to the right arm. These bullet trajectories are described according to the standard anatomic diagram, that is, standing, arms at sides, palms facing forward. That said, Brown sustained a gunshot wound to the dorsal (back) right forearm, below the elbow. The bullet tracked through the bone in the forearm, fracturing it, and exiting through the ventral (front) right forearm. Finally, Brown sustained a tangential or graze gunshot wound to the right bicep, above the elbow.
Given the mobility of the arm, it is impossible to determine the position of the body relative to the shooter at the time the arm wounds were inflicted. Therefore, the autopsy results do not indicate whether Brown was facing Wilson or had his back to him. They do not indicate whether Brown sustained those two arm wounds while his hands were up, down, or by his waistband. The private forensic pathologist opined that he would expect a re-entry wound across Brown’s stomach if Brown’s hand was at his waistband at the time Wilson fired. However, as mentioned, there is no way to know the exact position of Brown’s arm relative to his waistband
So, Brown gets shot through the arm (shattering bone no less) at, say, 20 feet away, causing a blood splatter to spray out and a little over a foot beyond (i.e., at 21.6 ft). Brown jerks from that hit (which witnesses interpret to mean he got hit in the back), stops, turns and stumbles forward a few feet (to the 17 foot mark) and more blood splatter from his arm drops.
He pulls his arm in toward him now so the blood gets absorbed by his clothes, rather than falling to the ground anymore (hence the report of his bloodsoaked clothing). He stumbles maybe a few more feet forward, trying to recover, but still not in any way charging or running forward, so say he's around 15 feet from Wilson, now, who is likewise still moving toward Brown (passed Johnson). So from Johnson's position, Brown hasn't really moved much at all, at least not in the "charging" or "running forward" sense. Brown has maybe stumbled a few feet (five to be exact in this scenario), but to Brown it would not look like significant movement, it would just look like someone who got shot from behind (presumably in his back), stopping his run, turning around and stumbling forward a bit.
Note this from
WaPo at the time:
In interviews with The Post, sources said blood spatter evidence shows that Brown was heading toward the officer during their faceoff, but analysis of the evidence did not reveal how fast Brown was moving.
So, now, again from Johnson's perspective, Brown is only fifteen feet from Wilson, but Wilson is moving toward Brown. Johnson is behind Wilson, so as he focuses on Wilson moving past him, Brown could easily have stumbled forward another few feet and Johnson didn't notice. Wilson supposedly then fires another volley of shots, which hit Brown again and account for him doing the "stutter" step forward. So Brown has moved another five feet or so without Johnson even registering any movement at all, other than as he testified (i.e., he stumbled around a bit).
After that volley of shots, Johnson said Wilson moved forward again, so once again his focus was on Wilson and Brown could easily have stumbled a few more feet forward, which is around the point where Johnson then said that he saw Brown was indicating surrender, so a few more feet toward Wilson. Etc.
Iow, it's entirely plausible and consistent with Johnson's testimony (he repeatedly stated earlier on in regard to the distance to the various housing units that he's not a good judge of it) that Brown could stumble forward some twenty feet (which for a 6' 4" kid would only be a few strides) and still not consider him to be charging or running forward or even moving all that much, particularly when Johnson's focus was split between what Brown was doing and what the cop with the gun was doing.
One other thing. Much was made by Wilson (and the DOJ) about Brown's right arm. Wilson had "tunnel vision" in regard to it, for fear Brown was reaching for a gun (emphasis mine):
During Brown’s initial strides, Brown put his right hand in what appeared to be his waistband, albeit covered by his shirt. Wilson thought Brown might be reaching for a weapon. Wilson fired multiple shots. Brown paused. Wilson explained that he then paused, again yelled for Brown to get on the ground, and again Brown charged at him, hand in waistband. Wilson backed up and fired again. The same thing happened a third time where Brown very briefly paused, and Wilson paused and yelled for Brown to get on the ground. Brown continued to “charge.” Wilson described having tunnel vision on Brown’s right arm, all the while backing up as Brown approached, not understanding why Brown had yet to stop.
...
the concentration of bullet wounds on Brown’s right side is consistent with Wilson’s description that he focused on Brown’s right arm while shooting.
Except that it was Brown's
left hand that was by his waistband:
Crime scene photographs establish that Brown fell to the ground with his left hand at his waistband and his right hand at his side.
So, how does that happen?
Derec said:
Especially since he also said that he was hit in the back.
No, he didn't. As I already showed, he repeatedly qualified that he couldn't be sure that he had been shot in the back; that he only thought that was the case because Brown jerked and stopped running, as if he had been hit in the back.
Also, there is no evidence Brown was hit anywhere while he was running away.
False, as, again, has already been established by the DOJ report quoted previously.
koy said:
Johnson is clearly assuming--based on the fact that Brown was running away (i.e., with his back to Wilson) and the fact that he stopped--that he was shot in the back, but he did not actually witness any bullet hitting Brown in his back.
He clearly should stick to things he was observing and not assume things.
He was, which is why he then
qualified his observations, by stating he didn't know exactly where Brown was shot. It's a perfectly logical assumption to think he got shot in the back in spite of Brown not actually being shot in the back.
Another strike against DJ as a witness.
Well, at least he didn't talk about the cloud of cartoon dust that Brown kicked up from running away so fast or how Brown became the Terminator and said, "you're too much of a pussy to shoot me" to a fucking cop like no real human being has ever or would ever say in real life.
an indication of surrender would be to get down on his knees, not to advance at least 25'.
Have you ever been shot? Particularly at least two times (and apparently in such fashion as to have your bones shatter) after having run 180 feet? You would be in deep shock and not even know where you are. Since you're evidently fond of Hollywood, remember the scene at the beginning of Saving Private Ryan where the guy whose arm got blown off is almost casually, but frantically focused on finding it in spite of the fact that bullets are flying everywhere and mortar shells exploding all around and dozens of his friends are being mowed down? That would be more like Brown's state of mind at that point. Not exactly thinking straight, at least not initially and since everything evidently happened in a matter of seconds, he apparently never had much time to process what the hell just happened before he was killed.
koy said:
Hell, even if Brown were moving toward Wilson in a manner that may have looked like he was running toward him, that still would not necessarily mean he was doing so to somehow attack Wilson. That simply makes no sense at all. More likely it would be to get him to stop shooting before Wilson killed Brown; showing Wilson that he was complying--as best he could under extreme duress--and no longer running away and willing to do whatever the officer wanted him to do, etc.
Charging at somebody is really not a good way to show you are not a threat. Quite the opposite.
Yeah, well, again, see above. And add into the mix that he was in no way a threat to Wilson even if wilson did think he had a gun. Wilson had the training, had the position and had also seen what Johnson had seen (in regard to Brown being hit), only would have the best vantage point of all to know exactly where he had hit him. And if, as he claimed, he did have "tunnel vision" on Brown's right arm, then he would have
definitely seen the blood streaming out of the bullet hole he made in that arm and how Brown was protecting it by holding it close.
Iow, it's quite possible--and highly likely--that what Johnson saw and what Wilson saw were the exact same things, just with different perspectives. To Johnson, Brown wasn't moving, as in, he wasn't charging toward Wilson as Wilson had claimed. Brown may have been--and very likely was--stunned and staggering and even stumbling forward a few steps (thereby accounting for the blood splatters), but not full-on running at him like a zombie warrior for no logical reason as Wilson claimed.
I think that's true in general - witnesses recount their observations from their perspective. But physical evidence precludes the "staggered a few steps" interpretation.
Not so much. Again, Brown was 6' 4", so his stride alone would easily cover a few feet and if initially it was him stumbling forward a few feet here and there--with Johnson's attention shifting from Brown to Wilson to Brown back to Wilson, etc--by the time of the final confrontation, Brown could easily have closed the distance to within about ten feet without Johnson thinking he moved at all (or at least not significantly and certainly not in the manner Wilson or even other witnesses claimed; i.e., charging or running).
So at the time of the final volley of shots, Johnson does see Brown moving forward--as he's being hit--in a final attempt to get Wilson to stop firing, and he finally drops. Again, Brown was 6' tall so if he steps a few feet forward, gaining a little momentum as he's being hit with the final volley and falls forward on his face, that easily accounts for the distance and still maintains Johnson's perspective.
Again, Brown was NOT stoned, NOT schizophrenic and NOT on any other drugs. So why the fuck would this kid just suddenly decide to commit suicide by cop? He thought he could take him? With what?
How do you know he was not still high? Apparently he still had high levels of THC in his system.
That's not how THC works. The toxicology report could only determine that he had smoked within several hours. Judging from Johnson's testimony, that would have been before 7 am, but even if Johnson was lying (and they got stoned when they found Johnson's friend), that's still hours before. Again, since you know nothing about being stoned, you'll just have to accept the fact that while it will remain in your system for days, it does not mean you're actively high while it remains in your system. Even the most potent forms of pot these days only have a few hours--like two or three--of the intense high and then the effects taper off. For a pothead like Brown supposedly was, the effects would be short lived at best, regardless of the amount found in his system. Pot just doesn't work like that, unless you eat it and even then the most intense part is going to be in the first two to three hours, with the effects significantly tapering off from there.
I once ate space cake--some of the most potent there is--in Amsterdam that wiped me out for a good four hours, but by the end of that, I most certainly did not have any desire for suicide by cop and I was perfectly lucid. And if anyone--especially a COP--had
shot me, my high would have instantly vanished.
And as to schizophrenia or any other mental disorder, he easily could have had one that was manifesting but was not diagnosed.
That would not have mattered as your own study--that you clearly did not actually read--proved. The
self-reported violent "thoughts" were only discovered in
some of the people--in their late twenties to early thirties--who had
acute schizophrenia manifesting for several years prior. Even if Brown did have it at 18, he would have exhibited numerous severe psychotic breaks for it to have advanced to the acute phase long before something so drastic as suicide by cop would have sprung out of smoking pot a few hours earlier.
And yet we have shown DJ to be inconsistent with physical evidence. He may well believe what he is selling, but he is still worthless as a witness.
I obviously disagree, but the same could be said of Wilson. Aside from the ludicrous cloud of dust and the "pussy" line that never happened, at least one of Wilson's shots hit the rear of Brown's arm (shattering the bone and exiting out the front). That either means it hit him when Brown was running away (most likely scenario), and that accounts for what Johnson (and others) thought was Brown being hit in the back, or Brown fdid in fact face Wilson and raised his arms in surrender when Wilson fired. Those are the only two scenarios where Brown's right arm could have been shot in the back of the arm with the bullet exiting out the front.
If, as I believe is the case, Wilson hit Brown in the arm as he ran away and that's what caused Brown to stop (and everyone else to believe he got hit in the back), then Wilson having "tunnel vision" on Brown's right arm would have necessarily meant that he saw the hit and the blood and the fact that Brown was cradling that wounded arm close to his side and that Brown could NOT have been using that hand to reach for any weapon.
If that is not the case, then that necessarily means Wilson shot Brown's arm when Brown's arms were held up in surrender, exactly as Johnson (and others) testified. The fact that he got hit in this manner would have also accounted for him immediately lowering his arms and no longer thinking that was a viable way to surrender, which in turn would account for him moving toward Wilson to plead for him to stop shooting.
So, either way, Wilson is either lying or simply omitting whichever of those two scenarios is the truth. Regardless, Wilson could not have been focused on Brown's right arm and missed the fact that it was shot and bleeding and Brown was holding it close to his side accordingly.
He likely never made any connection even while dealing with Brown and Johnson. To Wilson, he just saw too black kids walking down the middle of the road who he told to get the fuck off and Johnson said, "will do." And then Wilson saw in his rear view that they didn't immediately do what he told them to do. So he went Rambo on them and dramatically threw his cruiser in reverse for no other reason than to be hyper dramatic (which accounts for his use of such ridiculous things as "a cloud of dust" and "too pussy to shoot me") and then when he couldn't do what he wanted--get easily out of the car and play all macho--he get even angrier and grabbed Brown.
So he decided to hassle some random black guys and they coincidentally turned out to be the same ones from a robbery call?
Initially, yes. The only indication we have other (beside Wilson's testimony) is the call for back up. What's odd about that, is that he didn't specify then and there or reach out to the two other officers who had been given the original call, in spite of having spoken with them earlier asking if they needed his help.
And now you are portraying Wilson as a racist - all without any evidence
I posted ample evidence.
Regardless, he's evidently shot the kid and maybe, like Johnson, he thinks he got him in the back as well. He sees Brown stumbling forward toward him and takes that opportunity to shoot him again several times to make sure he's dead, because in Wilson's mind at that point, a living Brown would be able to testify as to what really happened between them and he can't alllow that, so down goes the nigger.
A just-so story if I ever saw one.
Just like Wilson's. Hell, just like Johnson's.
Which would also explain why St. Louis settled the wrongful death claim the Brown's filed to the tune of $1.5 Million, the records of which were sealed as part of the settlement agreement. Which of course proves that there is actually more to the story--and it ain't good for Wilson--that we won't be allowed to hear.
Much more likely is that they settled because jury trials are unpredictable.
Once again, that does not explain the Judge sealing the evidence presented.
