It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ferguson Police Chief Admits Officer Was Not Aware Of Robbery

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   
I haven't been following this and to be honest I didn't hear about it till yesterday mainly because I don't own a TV and have far to many things to do than to pay attention.

Anyway, I just watched the video and there saying a short time later he was killed after the robbery.

Not to be harsh but this seems to me as clear a case for KARMA as one can make. That's just my opinion on the matter. I will now return to those other things that require my attention..




posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Libertygal

originally posted by: Ex
Or the policecar video, where is that anyway?
a reply to: loam



There is no dashcams in the Ferguson police cars.

They do not have them.

Even if they did, which they did not, it wouldn't matter, as the confrontation took place beside, and behind, the car.

*bangs head on desk*

Do any of you have reasoning capability? Seriously, how would a dash cam, if they HAD THEM, work, BEHIND the car?!


/ludicrousity indeed. Yes, indeed.



Hey dumb #...

There would be audio....

DUH!!!!!



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: Libertygal

How did he withhold evidence? They didn't even bother questioning him until later. Don't you think he would be arrested/charged if any of what you claim was true? Even if only to support their ever-changing story?


What I claim? What, exactly, am I freaking claiming?! I am stating the facts, as have been presented. Did he tell about the burglary on CNN? Fox 2 News in Mo? MSNBC? No!


He would only have witheld evidence, once they took him in for questioning, and he stuck to the stories told on television interviews.

Is this really that complicated to understand?

He went, for days, spewing his story on television, obviously ommitting what we now know to be facts, in particular, the burglary. This weighed heavily in favor for the police, once they interrogated him. It was actually in their favor that he went so many days before being interviewed. The more he talkedz and stuck to the same lines, omitting facts he wae in knowledge of, the more bargaining power over him the police had.

The police finally bring him in. They question him. Did he stick to his story at first? No one knows! However, had he CHOSEN to, he could have been arrested and charged, as explained in several other posts. What we DO know is, his story has changed since the MSNBC interview, and his police interview.

What we do know is, he talked. He even talked without his attorney, due to a statement released by his attorney, that he, Dorians' attorney, was NOT aware of the burglary, and other things that came out today.

One can obviously deduce the attorney was NOT present.

Likely, when being questioned, he was told about the video, and he told them the story.

We won't know, likely until trial.

However, because he was there, during the burglary, and an accomplice, the PD words, not mine, and failed to report a crime, the burglary, he could be charged. Unless he gained immunity, or turned states witness, guess what? He still can be. There is no statute of limitations on capitol offenses of murder.

This is a valuable bargaining tool for anyone in trying to gain information. The police stated he will NOT be charged with anything. That means, rather simply, something took place in that interview, that likely got him OFF the hook. The only way to do that is to tell the truth.

He would not be labelled an accomplice had they nit considered arresting him. He would have been called "a person of interest", or maybe even a witness! The word "accomplice", in and of itself implies and infers intent.


I cannot believe I have to keep spelling this out.

edit on 15-8-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Libertygal


I cannot believe I have to keep spelling this out.


I can't believe you keep ignoring me!

Do you have any specific reason to disbelieve the statements of Tiffany Mitchell and Piaget Crenshaw? Would you agree that if what they have said is true, that Michael Brown was murdered? Post after post after post of you attacking the credibility the Dorian Johnson and not a single peep about either of these women!



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: HandyDandy

originally posted by: Libertygal

originally posted by: Ex
Or the policecar video, where is that anyway?
a reply to: loam



There is no dashcams in the Ferguson police cars.

They do not have them.

Even if they did, which they did not, it wouldn't matter, as the confrontation took place beside, and behind, the car.

*bangs head on desk*

Do any of you have reasoning capability? Seriously, how would a dash cam, if they HAD THEM, work, BEHIND the car?!


/ludicrousity indeed. Yes, indeed.



Hey dumb #...

There would be audio....

DUH!!!!!


I'm still stuck on the first sentence...

"There is no dashcams..."

If I was going to attempt to call out someone on their reasoning skills, I'd make sure to have my basic grammar game tight. Also, I think the correct wordage would be "capable of reasoning" not "reasoning capabilities."


BTW, I'm American, so the period goes inside the quotation marks, lol!

Regardless, a young man was shot to death several times by a LEO. Let's not lose sight of that fact.

I think the Ferguson PD Chief will likely loose his job, or at least be forced attend remedial PR type classes. The MO State Police, who took over handling the protests, etc. were not aware that the Ferguson Chief was going to release the photos/video. Nor were they aware of the fact that they were going to "officially" name him as a suspect in the robbery. Sounds like they (Ferguson PD) are doing everything they can to try and save face, but are failing miserably.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I am not ignoring you. I can only type so fast, so stop insinuating that. I am responding as fast as I can, I would love to eat some dinner and have a cup of coffee. Do I have permission? Or, must I respond immediately? I have not had a chance to review that video, and there are other posts I would like to reply to as well, but I am going to confront the attackers first.

Is this all okay with you, sir/madam?

edit on 15-8-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: lovebeck

Again, with attacking posters.

Now it's grammar.
Smh.

I have nothing more to say ti you, since you are"stuck" on that.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Libertygal

May I suggest you refer people to where they can read the facts. You're spending lots of effort on it. The details don't mater to me so much as they seem to with you.

What is the outcome YOU want to see? I myself want to see change in police policy.


edit on 15-8-2014 by Iamthatbish because: predict a text totally winning



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: theantediluvian

They're calling it "strong armed robbery" but it looks just like shop lifting to me.



Yeah, He doesn't seem to be intimidating and threatening the small store keeper.


strong-arm
[strawng-ahrm, strong-]

Word Origin

adjective
1.
using, involving, or threatening the use of physical force or violence to gain an objective:

Seems to fit the scenario to me.

Just because the officer didn't know they committed the robbery doesn't really change anything to me. The thugs knew they did it and when the police rolled up I am sure they figured it was about the robbery.

Lots of cops have been killed because they stopped someone for a tail light out or speeding and didn't know the person had just killed someone or robbed a bank. Makes a person very desperate.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Neither girl saw the critical portion involving the very first few moments.

Remember the LEO claims Brown reached for his gun. If true, it would explain why the officer feared for his life and shot Brown while both men were still at the vehicle. I could even understand perhaps the immediate additional shot as Brown was running away. At that point, the LEO may have thought Brown could have his own weapon and might still intend to use it.

However, the part about Brown's hands-up surrender and the LEO's final round of shots does seem completely unjustified. At that point, I imagine the LEO's uncontrolled adrenaline caused the final tragic moments.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamthatbish
Sure.

We can start with this video.

Have a listen, but WARNING, FOUL LANGUAGE.


Mike Brown EyeWitness Crime Scene Video Ferguson,…: youtu.be...




Now, what you are listening for here, is not the person taking the video.

Instead, listen to the people, off camera, talking, having a conversation.

One person is telling another the actual events of the shooting, and they substantiate the police officers account.

The person was likely not aware the video was being made, and the person making the video is probably not aware of the background talk, or else itprobably wouldn't have been posted.

The important part starts about 6:40.

Anyone who can, please save this video. It is very important that as many copies that can be made, are.


Also is anyone good at cleaning this up, sound wise, and isolating the converstation better?

Going to be working on a transcript, but, essentially, he tells how the cop was attacked, pushed into the car, they fought over the gun, and Michael ran, stopped, turned around, and bumrushed the cop.

A long ways from kneeling and pleading for his life.


edit on 15-8-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-8-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Libertygal

Ok. I heard what you are saying is important. @6:45 the person off camera says Brown, after initially running away, came back towards the officer. Is that correct?

ETA:

If you work on the transcript, I'd be glad to verify.

edit on 15-8-2014 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Second reply to your request:

Josie On The Dana Show 8-15-14: youtu.be...



This is from a radio show. A friend of the officer calls in, and offers his side of the story.

This is one of a kind, because thus far, no one knows any information, except what very little has been claimed by the police. And that's not much.

If nothing else, it lends to the ability to have information for discussion from the officers' perspective, which we are sorely lacking.

The media has flooded us with the Michael Brown story. Now, we have the Darren story.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: loam
I really was under the impression training teaches control in situations.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamthatbish

One needs only to look at the headlines on any given day to know that isn't true.....or at least that such training isn't very effective.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Libertygal

Alright. The two videos you posted make a pretty strong case.

I think you are really on to something. Nice job.

I'll wait to see if the autopsy results back this up.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Ok. I just got home from work so I just now am finding out about the update on all this. What a crazy twist, huh?!?!?

Correct me if I'm wrong or have missed some details cause I'm playing catch up.

Brown and Johnson robbed the store after all, for some cigs.

Cop drives up on their way home, but doesn't know about the robbery and isn't there for that at all.

So now we are trying to figure out the details about how the scuffle and shooting went down.

Am I right so far or did I miss something???



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Libertygal

Ok. I heard what you are saying is important. @6:45 the person off camera says Brown, after initially running away, came back towards the officer. Is that correct?



Yes, that is part of it, there is more. It's muffled, hard to hear, but he talks about them being inside the "truck" when the first shot goes off, then them fighting over the gun.

I will post more when I can, but here is what someone else was able to hear:


#1 How’d he get from there to there?

#2 Because he ran, the police was still in the
truck – cause he was like over the truck

[crosstalk]

#2 But him and the police was both in the truck,
then he ran – the police got out and ran after
him

[crosstalk]

#2 Then the next thing I know he doubled back
toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn
already on him –

#1. Oh, the police got his gun

#2 The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m
thinking the police kept missing – he like – be
like – but he kept coming toward him

[crosstalk]

#2 Police fired shots – the next thing I know –the police was missing

#1 The Police?

#2 The Police shot him

#1 Police?

#2 The next thing I know … I’m thinking … the
dude started running … (garbled something
about “he took it from him”)


theconservativetreehouse.com... ack-toward-police/



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join