Ferguson Police Chief Admits Officer Was Not Aware Of Robbery

Ooooooh got it

a reply to: xuenchen

a reply to: loam

Oh well, I won't bore you with chit-chat in the future. Promise.

As far as your clarified use of the word depraved ... while I don't, as a rule, believe in random violence, what I see in the video is a little fellow (the shopkeeper) probably juicing on his own endorphins as he was silly enough to try to put himself between Big Mike and the door.

Do you know the details of what happened at the counter?

Do you know what the interchange was between the two?

I don't; it's concealed from view.

But depraved? ----> "Very evil. Having or showing an immoral character."

Evil is just a little extreme in this, don't you tink?

a reply to: Libertygal

That's a good point. However think of this question.

What color is the ocean?
A) blue
B) clear
C)teal
D) turquoise
E)green
ITS THE SAME OCEAN! What if you choose to say the same thing a different way? What if you elaborate further each time you're asked.

I just don't care about the details like the rest of you do.

a reply to: mOjOm

I have addressed that, by both what the PD said, as well as my opinion, which is worth snot, in the thread.

They tried to reach him, but were not able to. Al Sharpton arrived, and swooped him away attorneyed him up, and he suddenly became findable.

There are many other reasons, from a police investigation standpoint, that make much common sense. Mainly, they let the star witness talk, talk, talk, while they already had him on film during the robbery. This allowed them to gather his statements several times before bringing him in and reading him his rights, then interviewing him.

It was a very tactical move by the PD, and actually makes a lot of sense.

By the time they brought him in, they had at least four statements from him, that I have seen, and one via his attorney.

We do no know what the police got from the proclaimed "accomplice", but we do know they aren't charging him.


So, you tell me. They caught him, on video, in the act of robbery. What makes sense to you, that they did not arrest this "accomplice"? The pd's word, not mine.

I will wait while you flesh that one out.

a reply to: xuenchen

Officer Darren Wilson as I've referred to him several times here , ... what's your point again?

a reply to: Libertygal
Why is the police not interviewing witnesses?

Bruh. @TheePharoah · 7s

"@safariswank__: @TheePharoah how many news crews have interviewed you?" None.

Same with Dorian Johnson.
Same with that girl.
What the hell are they doing?

a reply to: Iamthatbish

You are not understanding what I am saying, but that's okay, too.

I already stated, several times, that none of this matters at ALL, excepting what happened when the officer was struck, his state of mind, and if he feared for his life.

All the rest? Doesn't matter.

If he stated that he feared for his life, once the felony occurred of hitting the cop, self defense and that nasty ole Stand Your Ground law comes into effect, and yes, even a COP has the right to defend his life if he is attacked, and it was during the commission of a felony.

Was a felony committed?

Yes.

Did the officer shoot to defend his life?

According to statements that Michael went for his gun, yes.

It then became a matter of life or death.

The rest is hoakum.

ETA - The law in full text, as it applies, was posted a couple of pages back.

originally posted by: Libertygal
I have addressed that, by both what the PD said, as well as my opinion, which is worth snot, in the thread.

They tried to reach him, but were not able to. Al Sharpton arrived, and swooped him away attorneyed him up, and he suddenly became findable.

There are many other reasons, from a police investigation standpoint, that make much common sense. Mainly, they let the star witness talk, talk, talk, while they already had him on film during the robbery. This allowed them to gather his statements several times before bringing him in and reading him his rights, then interviewing him.

It was a very tactical move by the PD, and actually makes a lot of sense.

By the time they brought him in, they had at least four statements from him, that I have seen, and one via his attorney.

That makes sense. So you're saying they purposefully allowed him to make his position known because they already knew he wasn't being exactly honest. That way the could later apply more pressure on him for it???

We do no know what the police got from the proclaimed "accomplice", but we do know they aren't charging him.


So, you tell me. They caught him, on video, in the act of robbery. What makes sense to you, that they did not arrest this "accomplice"? The pd's word, not mine.

I will wait while you flesh that one out.

I'm sorry, I don't understand you question. Can you be more clear???

a reply to: Greven
They have. They have interviewed Johnson, days ago, along with multiple other witnesses.

Not certain what day, but I believe it was Wednesday.

a reply to: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: loam

Oh well, I won't bore you with chit-chat in the future. Promise.

Boy, you're real pleasant, aren't you? How did you read anything in my last reply negatively?

Whatever.

I don't need to see what happened behind the counter, because what can be clearly seen is Brown leaning WAY beyond what would have otherwise been required and extract more boxes of cigars. He then appears to either drop them or kneels for some other reason. The clerk then comes out to stop Brown.

Brown then assaults him.

Immoral character? Absolutely.

You have very strange standards, imo, if you think otherwise.

a reply to: mOjOm

Yes that is exactly what I am saying.

And as to my question...

The police already knew Darion was involved in the strong arm robbery before they brought him in for questioning.

They already had multiple statements from him.
But, not under oath, read his miranda, just on television.

This person was proven to have been lying from testimony seen on television vs what was released today.

This person attests that they were there, and witnessed the entire confrontation.

The charges of strong arm robbery are a convincing tool, when someone is under oath to tell the truth. Michael is dead. Darion has no one to protect but himself.

Now, a proven liar on film, caught in the act of a robbery, under Miranda. What reason does he have to lie anymore?

The ONLY arse left to save is his own.

We do not know what he said to the cops. We do know his attorney proclaimed shock at the information released today. He stated he was not aware of some information on Darion.

This can lead one to conclude that Darion may have spoken to the police without his attorney present.

This may mean that Darion also told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

IF what he said to the police supports the officer testimony, he may have bargained for no charges for the burglary, and turned states evidence.

A witness for the cop, or, a hostile witness.

a reply to: Libertygal

Interesting.

But wait. Same situation. Could Dorian also be pressured into going along with the "Cops Version" of the story because they gave him two options??? Option One, Keep the story as original, but be charged with the store crime and exposed as a liar for not mentioning it before and lying about it on TV. Option Two, make an official statement that you lied the first time, and say that the cops version is correct.

Either way, he was going to be shown to be lying so that is unavoidable. However, option two he's a liar who's free to go and option one he's a liar who gets charged.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Libertygal

A person that is fresh from a tragedy, and willing to talk may remember key things they actually forget LATER. When questioned, and prompted of a previous response, it can trigger that memory.

If a person is mentally and physically capable of being questioned immediately, it is actually best to get them then, and follow up one or more times, later.

That's interesting that you should say that because didn't they take a long time before interviewing Dorian in the first place???

I mean he went on TV a couple days later and told his story even and they still hadn't questioned him yet. Why didn't they question him that very first day when it happened???

Sorry, backtracking and missed this post.

They were not able to find him, the police stated. It was said, if I am not mistaken, that the address they had for him was not where he "stayed".

Black people do not ask, "Where do you live?" it is "Where you stay at?", and quite often, not the same as their "home" address. And no, this is not racial, it is cultural.

Anyway, the following days, they attempted to find him and were unable. Once Al Sharpton came to town and swooped Darion away and lawyered him up, AFTER he appeared on the MSNBC interview, he became findable.

The police stated they interviewed Darion on Tuesday, I believe, along with multiple other witnesses.

They are not going to interview every "witness", as I also already explained, many of these people only saw what happened after a point, or, are simply repeating hearsay.

Once the police have secured what they feel is "solid" testimony or evidence, anything beyond is uncessary. Especially, and particularly, if Darion has turned states evidence.

Again, a conjecture on my behalf, but an educated, and reasonable one.

No one will know if, and until charges are laid, and it goes to court.

Even once it gets to a Grand Jury, they may no bill once they interview witnesses and review evidence. Charges mean little, but would thrill the public.

It could even face jury nullification.

ETA - The FBI has also been blanketing the neighborhood, and interviewing many, many people.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Libertygal

Interesting.

But wait. Same situation. Could Dorian also be pressured into going along with the "Cops Version" of the story because they gave him two options??? Option One, Keep the story as original, but be charged with the store crime and exposed as a liar for not mentioning it before and lying about it on TV. Option Two, make an official statement that you lied the first time, and say that the cops version is correct.

Either way, he was going to be shown to be lying so that is unavoidable. However, option two he's a liar who's free to go and option one he's a liar who gets charged.

Considering the scrutiny the police are under, and the likely fact that FBI and/or DOJ were both present at the questioning, or at least watched it, I don't think it reasonable to assume any undue pressure was put on Darion.

It was likely that yes, he was confronted with his lies, and the video of the robbery, and given the option to give his side, or face charges.

That's not bad, that's how police get information. They bargain, sometimes they lie. Sometimes they intimidate, or make promises then reneg on them, and charge you anyway.


That's why you should never talk to police without an attorney.

State's evidence affords you immunity from charges, so it's always a good idea to have that agreement in writing from the DA before answering questions.

And, as a hostile witness, it affords the attorneys a special priveledge on the stand in most states, that allows them to badger the witness without reprisal.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Libertygal

You are 100% on the right track here.

Don't let the deflections and tangent "analysis" stop you.

We will be seeing every trick in the book thrown.

Sure, sure, because we're "in on it" too, right? We all got our instructions from the Marxist-Fascist-Progressive-Liberal Hotline this afternoon so that we know how to combat the True Red White and Blue Americans that are jumping through their collective butts to claim that ANYTHING ELSE IS TRUE BESIDES WHAT WE ALL KNOW TO BE TRUE?

Thank god I had my copy of Alinsky with me so I knew how to attempt to counter Libertygal's amazing crime-fighting powers, eh?

"Ewige blumenkraft!"

/shakes fist at the sky

Let me tell you a story.

I have a son in prison that was railroaded by one of the most corrupt police departments I have ever seen. I have made multiple posts and threads here on ATS about it. He is facing 25 years. Correction, was sentenced to 25 years.

He was held, without a bond hearing, in solitary confinement, for nearly two years. He had NO right to a speedy trial.

He was abused, and treated like a convicted felon. He filed, and is still pending, on a pro se litigant Civil Rights suit, and it appears it may be a precedent setting case in the court circuit where it is being heard.

Not only that, but, they had NO warrant to arrest, when they came to his home and got him. They did not obtain a warrant for 6 days. That was also a violation of his Civil Rights.

The Grand Jury returned a No Bill. Twice. Then, the DA simply waited unfil a new Grand Jury was seated, falsified evidence to obtain his True Bill, and continued with his railroad. It is illegal ti take a bill to two Grand Juries.

The True Bill, on it's face, was NOT signed by the Grand Jury foreperson, nor were the names on the sheet anyone ON the Grand Jury. No one, to this day, knows who the person was, that signed the indictment. It was obtained after my son had already rotted in Solitary, which was illegal, almost the full 90 day limit to obtain the indictment, minus 3 days.

The judge that oversaw several of his hearings had been the DA THAT PROSECUTED his case!! He refused to recuse himself, until it was demanded. The DA was promoted to Judge, and then assigned himself my sons' case. Do you think that doesn't reek of impropriety?!

During Jury Selection, they again violated his Civ Rights by tainting the Jury pool when a police officer that worked in the jail walked in, as a potential juror, and waved and said Hi! To my son. When asked, in front of the jury pool, how do you know him? He stated, he is a prisoner in the jail I work in. That was completely illegal, and should have stopped jury selection!

Two members of the jury knew the "alleged victim". Again, should NOT have happened.

So let me tell you. I, above many, have VERY much reason to despise the police, the courts, and the entire system. My sons' wife died since he has been in prison, on false charges, due to the immense stress on her. Her children lost their mother and I lost my precious daughter in law. I have not been able to see the 3 kids since.

This alone, grants me more hate and distrust than I can ever attest to. However!! That same system is the very one right now, that is going to save my son, and see him released. He just got his attorneys' brief, and has been granted appeal for new trial.

The DA that did the railroading, though it has been hidden, resigned due to being caught fabricating evidence. The county is quietly rehearing only the cases of those that doth protest.

I will not even go into how I was personally almost railroaded, but lets just suffice it to say, you, and no one here has any right to come at people about Liberty, and how they feel about Civil Rights.

The thing you do not seem to understand is, we all must follow the rule of law and evidence, like it or not. Lynchings went out of fashion, and need to stay that way. I am accused of having taken a side, for simply presenting facts people may find unpleasant. Sadly, I had to learn much of what I did, due to having been a victim of those same violations, along with my family.

The most painful thing I ever endured was when the DA told me that they accepted a plea deal on the guy that molested my daughter and 3 other girls one night. I wanted prison time, the DA said no. He was OUR attorney!

Icrecently posted how that same daughter had two kids literally stolen by DFACS, and then they adopted them out, because my daughter was unable to do everything they demanded. Look up the story.

All we have, people is the rule of law.

What we must do is force others to follow it, and give them the time to do so.

How is it fair to call for the lynching of a man, while accusing him of lynching another?

How hypocritical is that?!

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: loam

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Ferguson Police chief states quite clearly that Officer Wilson DID NOT KNOW THAT Brown had "stolen cigars." Check.

...

These are UNDISPUTED FACTS.

Would you also agree it's a fact the Brown and Johnson knew THEY had just jacked-up a convenience store and clerk some 15 minutes earlier?

Brown clearly was capable of violence.

I doubt the thought had not crossed either person's mind that the reason the LEO stopped them was for Brown's earlier actions.

Those facts change much, in my view.

It isn't so cut and dry anymore.

I think we have to wait for the autopsy report.

Same question I asked of Libertygal — what about the statements of witnesses Tiffany Mitchell and Piaget Crenshaw (linked a few posts back)? Listen for yourself and tell me if they sound credible and if what they are describing doesn't sound like murder.

EDIT:

Actually, I'll save everyone the trouble. Here's both of them on CNN a few days ago:

All right. You asked..no, demanded, my opinion on whether or not these two girls sound credible.

I am going to give my opinion, and my opinion only. Both yes, and no. Now, I will explain why I am answering you in this way.

Firsly, both witnesses stated that they missed the beginning of the confrontation. Check.

Next, both witnesses seem to have seen this from the passenger side of the vehicle. This means, by reasonable deduction, as well as coupled with their statetements, their view was obstructed partially.

Both witnesses state they saw a struggle, wrestling, between Michael and Darren.

Both witnesses interject their opinions, and state, it looked like Michael was trying to get away. The only way to really state that with impunity is to notchave an obstructed view, and to be close enough to know what was really going on. "Looking like" you are trying to get away could easily be mistaken in a tu of war over a weapon.

So far, this matches the testimony of the police officer, as given by the caller to the radio show.

It has been said a struggle over the weapon ensued, and the gun went off inside the vehicle.

If you look at the vehicle, in relation to the buildings, the one girl states a bullet hit the building. This is likely the bullet that hit Michael's arm. So far, the story matches.

When asked if Michael was "inside" the car, they both replied no.

"Inside the car", is relative, in this case, as determining when "inside the car" happened, and how each girl views "inside the car". Without knowing their definition of "inside the car", one cannot make a reasonable assessment. They may feel that actually sitting in the seat, exclusively, means, "inside the car". Without someone asking each onez we will never know. However, "inside the car, as it pertains to this case, means his torse was through the window, or perhaps the opened door. As per the radio caller testimony, it may be Darren was legs out, splayed backwards, with Michael on him. At some point the door was closed twice.

The radio caller stated that Michael pushed Darren into the car, punched him in the face, and a struggle over the gun ensued. Obviously, after some time, Darren got control of the gun. Did the gun go off, accidentally, because of the struggle?

If these two witnesses, coming late to the game are seeing this where I think they are, it was after the punch was thrown, and the struggle over the gun was taking place. After the door was closed the second time.

Both stated shortly thereafter the gun went off, but, made the proclomation Darren shot the gun, intentionally.

This is an assumption of fact. We do not know if the gun fired accidentally, or, because it was in two hands, being fought over, and discharged by accident.

So far, the stories match, if you remove assumptions made.

The two major assumptions at this point are:

It looked like Michael was trying to get away

And

The officet shot at him from inside the car

Timing is everything. They both clearly stated they were wrestling, struggling, the gun went off, THEN Michael turned and ran.

Check.

Once down the road, with the officer persuing him, wait. I thought he was still by the car?

A little problem with this statement. He either got out and stood there by the car, or, he persued. It cannot be both.

The radio caller stated that Darren chased after Michael, and he turned around, and taunted him. Saying, "What are you gonna do? You gonna shoot me?", then, he charged at Darren, who opened fire.

So far, what I see happening is, Michael, when he turned to the officer, put his hands up, "in the air", as this is how people SAW it, while taunting Darren, "What are you gonna do? You gonna shoot me?", then charging at Darren, as claimed.

Why did they leave that part out? Why did Darion? Why did Darion leave out the burglary?

We will not know this, until the autopsy, and perhaps, the trial.

If, as Darren has claimed, Michael charged at him, hands in the air, after having taunted him, to Darren, this would be, fairly, seen as an agressive, threatening stance, especially since he had just been punched in the face.

To others, confused and not understanding what was happening, and likely not hearing what was being said, as they did not make the "Don't shoot me" claims, the hands in the air stance well could have been perceived as a surrender gesture, when in fact, it was a taunt.

We, in the end, do not know where Darren was standing, only perhaps where he was as Michael turned on him. However, the claim now, was, he persued. Only gunshot evidence will attest, hopefully, to the distance. Sometimes, if it is a greater than 6-10 foot distance, a mean distance cannot be determined.

If he fired 9 shots, it does not mean 9 shots hit Michael.

In the unintended witness video, the guy even says, we thought the police was missin him. Meaning, it didn't look like all shots made contact.

Last, but not least, officers are taught to fire center mass, the torso, to kill.

Not kneecaps, not to injure or maim, or slow down a threat. To kill. The final shot will be the telltale one, becausr if Michael was charging him, and he was firing, unloading on him, which he had the right to do if his story is true, the final head shot MAY present gunpowder residue, and allow for distance testing.

So, that's my opinion. I think that these witnesses and many others, when viewed objectively, match very closely to the now known, or assumed, testimony of Darren.

Of course, we only have one statement from the radio caller, and a few tidbits from the police with which to formulate a reasonable view.

Most witnesses will say things like, "it looked like", or, "I think". When you hear that, you must take what follows with a grain of salt, because they are interjecting, rather than giving factual statements.

originally posted by: Libertygal
will not even go into how I was personally almost railroaded, but lets just suffice it to say, you, and no one here has any right to come at people about Liberty, and how they feel about Civil Rights.

What. In the World. Are you Talking About?

Pointing a few locations where the logic of your narrative draws thin is neither an attack on you, nor an attack on how you feel about Liberty or about Civil Rights. Are you familiar with the concept of irony? Did I direct the comments you highlight above at you, or at someone else - another user that I have a background with and who was sniping from the sidelines? You seem to take a lot of things personally including any critique of your extensive "analysis" of the Brown case.

I have pointed out, and I'll stand behind any of it word for word, the inconsistencies of many people's approaches to the issues at hand here at ATS.

I would love to see examples, either in the discussion here or in private U2U, of any critique I have offered you about your feelings on Liberty and Civil Rights.

Aside from that, I'm sorry for what has happened to your son and yourself at the hands of apparently corrupt government officials.

originally posted by: loam

Immoral character? Absolutely.

You have very strange standards, imo, if you think otherwise.

Sooo ... the only way to look at a situation, and judge it effectively, is to see it through your eyes and by your standards?

Gotcha.

Also, thanks for the backhanded insult.

I understand what you say you see in the video. I see other possibilities. I see other possibilities because I have trained myself not to accept the most popular interpretation of events.

However, you used the word depraved to describe Brown's actions, a word which carries an extreme interpretation of evil, violence, mayhem, etc.

Now you're downgrading it to immoral.

Just for the record, as you seem to think I'm fair game for your personal comments, I find your approach to the whole thing extremely one-sided and arrogant. But that, like your comments, is only One Opinion.

a reply to: mOjOm

Just following up your question about Darion being interviewed. Since I was not certain whether it was Tuesday or Wednesday, I went and found some firmconfirmation.

www.usatoday.com...

Johnson, Brown's friend and witness to the
shooting, was summoned by police and FBI
on Wednesday to give his account. He said
has moved from his apartment with his
girlfriend and young daughter because he
fears retaliation from police.

Minus the inflamatory remark about retaliation, it becomes clear that Darion made himself hard to find.

This also clarifies my earlier statement that the Furgeson PD would be under close scrutiny in their questioning of Darion, and does prove the FBI's presence. Hence, no undue duress or threats took place, most assuredly.

Now, all that is left is to see what, exactly he told police, and how closely it resembled his television interviews, as well as statements made about Darren's side of the story.

At this point, if he did turn states evidnce, that will likely be held close to the vest, for his protection.

Hopefully, his friends will view his not being charged as he got away with a robbery, and win him street cred, versus them starting to question why. If, for any reason, they suspect Darion of "rolling over", he could pay with his life.

The police may well have actually moved him, and the whole "retaliation" remark could be a cover agreed to by police.

All of that is conjecture, of course, but not unreasonable.

A reasonable person would still be led to question, "Why are no charges being filed on someone the PD called an "accomplice""?

Simply put, if that IS the case, they are once again bungling the job.

Either way, unless leaks start happaneing, or Darion starts talking more, we won't know until trial, and discovery.

I would imagine an FOIA would be refused due to ongoing investigation and trial.

There are going to be some very frustrated people in about a year, if this is pursued, and goes to trial.

I will close with this bit.

He fell dramatically into the fatal
position. I did not hear once he yell freeze,
stop or halt.

Darion had a habit in almost all if his videos, on interjecting things like this.

To my knowledge, no one ever made the claim this was said, until tonight, when the family friend called the radio show.

Why does Darion make a point of interjecting these things, when no one asked, no claims were made, and he literally had no reason to? In fact, it was claimed Darren said, "Freeze!", which I would think most cops today would use "Stop", or "Halt".

These remarks may be very telling, in fact, because the claim having been made was unknown at this point to Darion, yet, he felt a need to refute it.

The same goes for many, many, of his remarks, especially in the MSNBC video, when he protests, "We weren' blocking traffic, and no one had to drive or swerve around us, or nothing."

He also stated "they" told Darren they were almost to their destination and would be off the street in a minute.

This was supported also, by the caller's statement, but, she stated, it was said in a more profane way.

Not that it matters, but much of his testimony matches, but, only to degree. The deflecting remarks, almost appearing to come from thin air, actually have a basis in fact, if we are to believe the radio callers' statement.

I find it rather intrigueing.

I believe also, by "fatal position" they meant fetal position, because that was how he pronounced it.

However, most having seen the photos can clearly see he was not in the fetal position, nor were his hands in the air, as it was claimed. "He had his hands in the air, then just fell foward and died".

Had this been the case, his arms would be beside his head, not down the length of his torso.