The web of lies in Ferguson

[Rhea]

Then why did you quote what I said and respond with something unrelated?

The poster I responded to believes the story that Wilson initially reached for Brown. How does this abbreviated testimony corroborate that story? The argument from incredulity you present isn't compelling. You tell me where something is clearly impossible or highly improbable. Btw, you left out numerous details in that abbreviated narrative.

Wilson says he did grab Brown. He claims that Brown hit him with his fist full of cigarillos first, then turned and gave them to someone else. May be true, may be not. But he did grab Brown and a bystander would have seen that.


Apart from that, you misunderstand my purpose in posting. I'm not trying to compel you to believe anything. I'm asking for descriptions that would be compelling to me or others, because I have admitted I'm having a hard time imagining Wilson's play-by-play. I have not presented any alternative that tries to be compelling to you. I'm asking.

Yes, I left out details, like the iterations of choice Wilson went through while he was being allegedly punched. They were not relevant to the angles of hands and guns at the moments of the shots. Feel free to add them back when you describe your own scenario.
But it does come down to Brown only grabbed Wilson's gun once it was pointed at Brown, point-blank.
(which, in hindsight was probably a really stupid thing to do? Get your gun into play within an arm's-length of a guy who you think is a thug? Putting the car in "D" might have been a shit-load more effective and safe. From Wilson's testimony, things were about to go really really badly for Wilson. Perhaps a training opportunity at the academy.)

And it turns out upon a close reading, that this is exactly accurate, isn't it?
"I think it's pretty obvious, to me anyway, that Wilson drew the weapon in response to Brown's resistance after Wilson grabbed him from the truck."
According to Wilson's testimony, Wilson DID grab Brown, after which Brown DID punch him, after which Wilson DID draw his gun. The "gun grab" only happens after all of those.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're making the erroneous assumption that the cop did nothing in response to the attempted gun grab.

The reality is that he obviously drew his gun. If the intent wasn't aggressive how did his hand end up that close to the business end of the officer's gun and with his thumb pointed at the gun? A surrender position would put the thumb approximately 90 degrees from the gun, not pointed at it.

You're making the assumption there was a gun grab. Also, you haven't addresses the point about the missing bullet hole inside the car. If Brown got that wound while trying to wrestle Wilson's gun away while Wilson was still in his car, where did the bullet go?

Out the window.

 

[EPresence2]

Wilson says he did grab Brown. He claims that Brown hit him with his fist full of cigarillos first, then turned and gave them to someone else. May be true, may be not. But he did grab Brown and a bystander would have seen that.

The testimony I read did NOT say he grabbed Brown initially at the window. It sounded more like he was trying to push him away from blocking the car door before he was allegedly assaulted by Brown. It would help here to provide the page and line number where you see support for the initial grab by Wilson. I've read through a few times now and don't see it.

Apart from that, you misunderstand my purpose in posting. I'm not trying to compel you to believe anything. I'm asking for descriptions that would be compelling to me or others, because I have admitted I'm having a hard time imagining Wilson's play-by-play. I have not presented any alternative that tries to be compelling to you. I'm asking.

I did not misunderstand your purpose; I said your argument from incredulity was not compelling... because it doesn't provide any clear point of fact or logic to examine. Instead, it's asking the reader to envision a situation you and others willfully continue to distort by claiming Wilson initially grabbed Brown at the window according to his own testimony. Of course I will take that back if you can produce a statement from Wilson that corroborates your narrative.

Yes, I left out details, like the iterations of choice Wilson went through while he was being allegedly punched. They were not relevant to the angles of hands and guns at the moments of the shots. Feel free to add them back when you describe your own scenario.

All I see are strawmen used to pretend you have left out nothing significant. The onus is on you to prove the scenario presented by Wilson is clearly impossible or highly improbable. I don't see the impossibility or even the improbability from reading the testimony. And it's not because I just want to believe it.

According to Wilson's testimony, Wilson DID grab Brown, after which Brown DID punch him, after which Wilson DID draw his gun. The "gun grab" only happens after all of those.

Where are you getting this order of events because it isn't from the Wilson testimony. That sounds more like the Dorian Johnson testimony.

So you are claiming that Wilson started the physical altercation by his own testimony and thereafter lied about the encounter leading up the first shots because you think they are implausible. A more plausible scenario (to you) started with Wilson grabbing Brown for not getting off the street and away from his door - then pulling his gun out after a defensive punch from Brown - then shooting from the vehicle prompting Brown to run away - followed by Brown turning around to say "Hands up Don't shoot" - followed by Wilson gunning him down. How demonic do you think a trained policeman is you don't even know? Perhaps there is also a criminal element in Ferguson (and elsewhere) that is loving this apparent misdirection of justice. I don't doubt there is unnecessary brutality by some police, but this case is a bum steer to pin it on IMO.

 

[ksen]

Looks like Prosecutor McCulloch may have broken the Missouri Supreme Court rules of conduct by allowing McElroy on the stand.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...could-restart-the-case-against-darren-wilson/

In intentionally presenting false testimony to the grand jury, McCulloch may have committed a serious ethical breach. Under the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct, lawyers are prohibited from offering “evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.”

McCulloch justified his actions by asserting that the grand jury gave no credence at all to McElroy’s testimony. But this is speculation. Under Missouri law, the grand jury deliberations are secret and McCulloch is not allowed to be present.

And by not actually acting as an advocate for the State, and by extension Michael Brown, McCulloch may have also opened up the door to having a special prosecutor assigned by the presiding judge.

In State v. Copeland, a 1996 case, a Missouri court replaced the prosecutor because the judge “sensed that [the prosecutor’s] sympathies for [the defendant] may have prevented him from being an effective advocate for the state.” The judge “found the adversarial process to have broken down in that [the prosecutor] appeared to be advocating the defendant’s position.”

I think it's only fair that whenever there's a case that involves indicting a police officer a special prosecutor should automatically be called in. It preserves the appearance of impartiality and it would also be fairer to the local prosecutor because (s)he has to work with local police and successfully indicting what's basically his coworkers may be bad for his career if he needs their help in the future.

 

[Rhea]

So you are claiming that Wilson started the physical altercation by his own testimony and thereafter lied about the encounter leading up the first shots because you think they are implausible. A more plausible scenario (to you) started with Wilson grabbing Brown for not getting off the street and away from his door - then pulling his gun out after a defensive punch from Brown - then shooting from the vehicle prompting Brown to run away - followed by Brown turning around to say "Hands up Don't shoot" - followed by Wilson gunning him down. How demonic do you think a trained policeman is you don't even know? Perhaps there is also a criminal element in Ferguson (and elsewhere) that is loving this apparent misdirection of justice. I don't doubt there is unnecessary brutality by some police, but this case is a bum steer to pin it on IMO.

No. I said that Wilson's testimony is that Brown hit him once with a fistful of cigarillos. That Brown then turned away to hand the cigarillos off and at that point Wilson grabbed Brown's arm. After that Brown punched him. Then Wilson drew and pointed his gun in Brown's face and only then did Brown grab for the gun.

From page 6.


Page 8 and 9 says where Brown stepped back after the shot through the door, and then apparently went after the gun that was shooting at him again, then Wilson shots again and Brown runs away. It's what Wilson's testimony says.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Here's a press release from the National Bar Association:

http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b493e6c4d31beda32fdaf8e2d&id=73514e334b

ApostateAbe? Would you mind contacting them and explaining to them what they got wrong? They are clearly in need of your expertise on this matter.

Underseer, I don't know what they got wrong, because they didn't explain their reasoning. Take note that this is NOT the American Bar Association. This is the "National Bar Association." The difference is that the National Bar Association is an organization of purely black activist lawyers and judges, as stated in the footer of that page.

 

[EPresence2]

No. I said that Wilson's testimony is that Brown hit him once with a fistful of cigarillos. That Brown then turned away to hand the cigarillos off and at that point Wilson grabbed Brown's arm. After that Brown punched him. Then Wilson drew and pointed his gun in Brown's face and only then did Brown grab for the gun.

Your story keeps changing Rhea. Do I really have to quote what you've been saying? Your "DID" procession of cause and effect starts with Wilson grabbing Brown's arm. You are severely downplaying or omitting some of Brown's alleged actions. Why the apparent dishonesty here?

 

[EPresence2]

No. I said that Wilson's testimony is that Brown hit him once with a fistful of cigarillos. That Brown then turned away to hand the cigarillos off and at that point Wilson grabbed Brown's arm. After that Brown punched him. Then Wilson drew and pointed his gun in Brown's face and only then did Brown grab for the gun.

Your story keeps changing Rhea. Do I really have to quote what you've been saying? Your "DID" procession of cause and effect starts with Wilson grabbing Brown's arm. You are severely downplaying or omitting some of Brown's alleged actions. Why the apparent dishonesty here?

Remember that you are defending this statement as an accurate interpretation of the Wilson testimony: "I think it's pretty obvious, to me anyway, that Wilson drew the weapon in response to Brown's resistance after Wilson grabbed him from the truck."

Now you claim to NOT be saying the grab by Wilson started the physical altercation when you clearly stated the contrary in your responses. But in reading through our responses again, we are talking about different things. The quote above isn't about the initial assault but rather what precipitated the gun draw. So we are both right about the witness testimony, just talking about different aspects. Now if you could point out where you think the account is implausible...

 

[Rhea]

Your story keeps changing Rhea. Do I really have to quote what you've been saying? Your "DID" procession of cause and effect starts with Wilson grabbing Brown's arm. You are severely downplaying or omitting some of Brown's alleged actions. Why the apparent dishonesty here?

Remember that you are defending this statement as an accurate interpretation of the Wilson testimony: "I think it's pretty obvious, to me anyway, that Wilson drew the weapon in response to Brown's resistance after Wilson grabbed him from the truck."

Now you claim to NOT be saying the grab by Wilson started the physical altercation when you clearly stated the contrary in your responses. But in reading through our responses again, we are talking about different things. The quote above isn't about the initial assault but rather what precipitated the gun draw. So we are both right about the witness testimony, just talking about different aspects. Now if you could point out where you think the account is implausible...

You originally wrote:

Originally Posted by EPresence2 View Post
"I think it's pretty obvious, to me anyway, that Wilson drew the weapon in response to Brown's resistance after Wilson grabbed him from the truck."

This is according to Dorian Johnson - other witnesses recount only what happened during and after the scuffle at the car - that Wilson grabbed him is clearly not obvious. This is one possible narrative that some obviously want to believe.

"some obviously want to believe,"
But it turns out to be testimony that matches Wilson. The drawn gun _was_ in response to Brown's resistance to Wilson's grab. No it wasn't the first event. But it was the event that resulted in a drawn gun. I'm really not sure what you're arguing. You sounded like you were dismissing Dorian's testimony as ridiculous, yet it is supported by Wilson's.

You implied support of Dorian's testimony was flawed. But Dorian's testimony matches Wilson's. So maybe "some obviously wanted to believe" was a comment intended to deride those who believe Dorian's testimony, despite the fact that it is supported by Wilson himself.

That's all. Wilson did grab Brown at the point immediately preceding the drawing of the gun. Dorian's testimony "I think it's pretty obvious, to me anyway, that Wilson drew the weapon in response to Brown's resistance after Wilson grabbed him from the truck." and it seems to turn out "that Wilson grabbed him is clearly not obvious," according to Wilson's own testimony, especially to the guy who was standing right there and had the cigarillos handed to him _while_ Wilson was holding Brown's other arm.

 

[none]

why don't one you nay sayers and supporters of the truth describe how wilson got red marks on the right side of face and back of the neck.

 

[Arctish]

why don't one you nay sayers and supporters of the truth describe how wilson got red marks on the right side of face and back of the neck.

I would if I could. But Wilson never filled out the standard incident report describing the confrontation and Dorian doesn't have X-ray vision allowing him to see through Brown's body and the roof of the car, so there isn't a source to turn to.

 

[none]

I thought wilson's testimony wasn't the incident report..
I thought there was more too it.
surely somebody can spell it out how wilson got those red marks.
maybe michael brown threw a left hook while deep inside the car and hit officer wilson in the back of the head before that and while brown was punching with his left he was also grabbing the firearm strapped in a locked holster....

 

[Arctish]

I thought wilson's testimony wasn't the incident report..

It isn't. Wilson never filled out the Incident Report. His testimony before the Grand Jury is the closest thing we have to it.

I thought there was more too it.

I think so too.

surely somebody can spell it out how wilson got those red marks.
maybe michael brown threw a left hook while deep inside the car and hit officer wilson in the back of the head before that and while brown was punching with his left he was also grabbing the firearm strapped in a locked holster....

Wilson probably could, but I don't think his lawyers want him to go there. He's off the hook for now so the less said, the better.

 

[EPresence2]

The drawn gun _was_ in response to Brown's resistance to Wilson's grab. No it wasn't the first event. But it was the event that resulted in a drawn gun. I'm really not sure what you're arguing. You sounded like you were dismissing Dorian's testimony as ridiculous, yet it is supported by Wilson's.

You implied support of Dorian's testimony was flawed. But Dorian's testimony matches Wilson's. So maybe "some obviously wanted to believe" was a comment intended to deride those who believe Dorian's testimony, despite the fact that it is supported by Wilson himself.

That's all. Wilson did grab Brown at the point immediately preceding the drawing of the gun. Dorian's testimony "I think it's pretty obvious, to me anyway, that Wilson drew the weapon in response to Brown's resistance after Wilson grabbed him from the truck." and it seems to turn out "that Wilson grabbed him is clearly not obvious," according to Wilson's own testimony, especially to the guy who was standing right there and had the cigarillos handed to him _while_ Wilson was holding Brown's other arm.

I acknowledged the misunderstanding on my part already but still do not see why this is significant in terms of probable cause for an indictment. I was always clearly talking about what initiated the physical altercation but you didn't seem to notice. So again, please explain what you think is implausible and how that suggest an indictment. You may also want to look at my initial post on this thread...

 

[Underseer]

The drawn gun _was_ in response to Brown's resistance to Wilson's grab. No it wasn't the first event. But it was the event that resulted in a drawn gun. I'm really not sure what you're arguing. You sounded like you were dismissing Dorian's testimony as ridiculous, yet it is supported by Wilson's.

You implied support of Dorian's testimony was flawed. But Dorian's testimony matches Wilson's. So maybe "some obviously wanted to believe" was a comment intended to deride those who believe Dorian's testimony, despite the fact that it is supported by Wilson himself.

That's all. Wilson did grab Brown at the point immediately preceding the drawing of the gun. Dorian's testimony "I think it's pretty obvious, to me anyway, that Wilson drew the weapon in response to Brown's resistance after Wilson grabbed him from the truck." and it seems to turn out "that Wilson grabbed him is clearly not obvious," according to Wilson's own testimony, especially to the guy who was standing right there and had the cigarillos handed to him _while_ Wilson was holding Brown's other arm.

I acknowledged the misunderstanding on my part already but still do not see why this is significant in terms of probable cause for an indictment. I was always clearly talking about what initiated the physical altercation but you didn't seem to notice. So again, please explain what you think is implausible and how that suggest an indictment. You may also want to look at my initial post on this thread...

Honestly, you're quibbling over unnecessary details.

If it's so clear cut that the accused was innocent, why was the "prosecutor" acting like a defense attorney for the accused? Why did he fail to cross examine the accused, and why treat the victim like the accused? That is mighty bizarre behavior for a "prosecutor."

If it's such a cut and dried case that the "defendant" was innocent, why is the National Bar Association getting involved? Wait, lemme guess. It's because alla them darkies are in cahoots, right?

 

[Rhea]

I acknowledged the misunderstanding on my part already but still do not see why this is significant in terms of probable cause for an indictment.

There are several threads of conversation going on. You arrived in the middle after I had asked about the drawing of the gun with this statement:
"I'm curious about one particular piece of evidence." and I went on to say it puzzles me as I can't picture how it even happened.

You responded with a quote from Dorian JOhnson about the drawing of the gun. Perhaps I was mistaken in inferring that you were responding to my post about how and when the gun was drawn - the first post talking about that point I think. I do not know who or what you were replying to in post #135 if it was not the one about the weirdness of Wilson's gun testimony.

I assumed you were looking at my question "I'm curious about this" and replying, "well anyone who believes Johnson is a fool," and you linked Wilson's testimony which proceeded to back up Johnson.

I was always clearly talking about what initiated the physical altercation but you didn't seem to notice.

YOu are correct, I didn't notice since the very first thing you said was a quote about the reason the gun was drawn.

So again, please explain what you think is implausible and how that suggest an indictment. You may also want to look at my initial post on this thread...

I am making no comment about an indictment, never was. I was simply observing that when I try to picture a guy getting shot in the hand, I can't picture how it happened given the accusation of a "gun grab," and then invited people to propose descriptions of it that would be plausible. If this turns out to be enough all on its own to support an indictment, I would be surprised.

 

[EPresence2]

I am making no comment about an indictment, never was. I was simply observing that when I try to picture a guy getting shot in the hand, I can't picture how it happened given the accusation of a "gun grab," and then invited people to propose descriptions of it that would be plausible. If this turns out to be enough all on its own to support an indictment, I would be surprised.

According the Wilson testimony, the shot in the hand happened after the gun grab and subsequent maneuver by Wilson to orient gun away from his hip for a shot at Brown's silhouette. From reading the testimony, it sounds like the first shot was made while both were grappling for control of the gun in the new position (away from officers hip) and resulted in the hand wound on Brown. It was indicated that Brown had only one hand on the gun, so the off-hand could have been hit. Now here is your revised description of event portion in question - you make it sounds like the gun was still pointed in Wilson hip when the shot was made. This is incorrect according to the testimony.

so:
- he was sitting in his car
- with his gun holstered
- - - because he only reacted to Brown's aggression and therefore would never have arrived with a drawn gun
- and Brown reached inside the car
- and Wilson grabbed his arm to try to control him
- across Wilson's body
- and went for the gun and started hitting Wilson
- which and Wilson drew
- and turned on Brown
- who pinned his gun against Wilson's left hip
- within the car
- and Wilson pivoted the gun, held in his right hand, pointed at his own left hip
- and shot Brown in the front of the hand
- without hitting himself
- or anything inside of his car and apparently shot through his own door, breaking the window

So try that.
-

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, if Brown grabbed Wilson's gun, his fingerprints should have been on it, right? Anyone know if they were?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, if Brown grabbed Wilson's gun, his fingerprints should have been on it, right? Anyone know if they were?

You can't be certain of getting prints when something is touched. The presence of prints shows it was touched, the absence doesn't show it wasn't.

 

[ksen]

that's convenient