Ferguson Police Chief Admits Officer Was Not Aware Of Robbery

originally posted by: Libertygal

Hey Libertygal, how's it goin girl??

I'm just finding out about the new info on all this. What a crazy turn of events.

How many different eyewitness accounts do you have so far on this. We have the Dorian Johnson one. The other guy who you had a video for talking about this in his kitchen. Now this new one you posted above. Which I'm still trying to figure out what they are saying because it's hard with all the noise. But is that it so far or do you have any more??

I swear, some posters here must do this kind of thing for a living.

But, even professional really good story-tellers can get mixed up sometimes, eh?

Here's a small example. Libertygal first says:

In the video I posted above, the guy states that the cop shot at Michael, in the car. He even turns and mimcks the officers' movements. How do you shoot at Michael into the car, if the cop never got out of the car, and Michael was never in the car?

This is called "building the narrative." Make a string of reasonable assumptions, and then start building on them, as if they were true.

Then this:

The cop was injured. FACT. This is the most damning, and truly, the center of the entire case.

Once a hand was laid on the cop, it doesn't matter why he stopped. He could have stopped to say "Happy Cat Day!"

None of it makes any difference, up, and until, the cop was hit in the face, and a struggle ensued over his weapon.

... and then, this:

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?!

See, this is what happens when people get both prideful and excited: the narrative just goes to hell.

It was very important in the first phase of the above scenario for Michael Brown to be IN the car somehow, of course, we're going to ignore the fact that police cars don't exactly allow for easy access, but "why else would the gunshot be fired inside the car?" Right?

But, then, when the idea of actual evidence from a dash cam comes up, oops, we need to pivot and push that away so we're now suddenly, if you'll pardon the pun, copping to the fact that the "altercation" took place OUTSIDE the car, that no one saw Michael Brown strike Officer Wilson in the face, but what WAS seen was Michael trying to get away from someone who was shooting at him.


So, here we have Wilson, a six year veteran of the force, who in what he probably thought was a routine drive-by, tells the kids to get the F out of the road. Michael, perhaps already agitated for whatever reason, mouths off at the Officer, which results in a sudden stop, reverse and possibly a door slammed into Michael Brown who is, really, at this point in the Officer's eyes, a mouthy jaywalker. Officer Wilson then claims that Michael Brown struck him (inside the police vehicle) and went for his gun. Wilson apparently quite the quick draw specialist (especially in such close quarters sitting behind a steering wheel), beats Brown to the draw and fires at least once. Michael Brown turns and flees or starts backing down the street.

Remember, the PD has admitted that at this moment WILSON DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE "ROBBERY."

How does an officer with 6 years experience on the force decide a few seconds later to put between 3 and 9 bullets into an unarmed teen who was either fleeing or backing away from him? Several after Brown was down on the ground.

This is the "appropriate response" to a mouthy jay-walker who may have slapped, punched or bumped the cop?

I don't think someone has any idea about the conduct of a "lethal force" investigation.

Oh, small side-note on additional inconsistencies, if Dorian Johnson had turned state's evidence there is no way in Hades he'd be allowed to continue his tour of the Cable News shows, now is there?

Ahhhnnh, but what do I know? I'm not a professional.

a reply to: Libertygal

Ty, I watched both videos. I was really disturbed with both just for completely different reasons.

The word of mouth on FB can be gotten as evidence in case there were any mistakes. If you've ever heard the phrase, "it doesn't matter what happened, that's what they perceived as happening " you'll understand why this specific incident doesn't matter to me as much as WHY the same type of incident keeps occurring.

In the second video the crowd groupthinked themselves into a frenzy. Here again I wonder if this is where crowd dispersment should have been utilzed. Don't forget this is their community. They heard their friend screaming repeatedly about getting her son help.

I just think the process failed.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Remember, the PD has admitted that at this moment WILSON DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE "ROBBERY."

But I bet Brown and Johnson *Thought* he "knew".

How could two guys who just has an "altercation" in a store Not think the store called the cops?

a reply to: mOjOm

I have seen now, at least seven. There is one more posted in this thread I have not watched, but I believe I have read the testimony. Watching them speak definitely adds flavor beyond what plain text does, however. A good listener can take in body language, pauses, glances, and other habits, to form an opinion of honesty or lying, along with comparison to other known testimonies as well as facts.

Yes, it has been quite a day, however, things for the officer, factually, haven't really changed, unless you take into account the two videos I just added.

Been a busy week, just finished two graveyard shifts and been trying to keep up with all of this, was hard. Thank you for asking.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think you need to see her last two video posts, here and here.

I think there is some compelling information there.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, here we have Wilson, a six year veteran of the force, who in what he probably thought was a routine drive-by, tells the kids to get the F out of the road. Michael, perhaps already agitated for whatever reason, mouths off at the Officer, which results in a sudden stop, reverse and possibly a door slammed into Michael Brown who is, really, at this point in the Officer's eyes, a mouthy jaywalker.

Ok, so the story is pretty solid up until this point right??? It's the next section that is conflicting and going to be the most controversial correct??

Officer Wilson then claims that Michael Brown struck him (inside the police vehicle) and went for his gun. Wilson apparently quite the quick draw specialist (especially in such close quarters sitting behind a steering wheel), beats Brown to the draw and fires at least once. Michael Brown turns and flees or starts backing down the street.

So the major uproar is exactly what happened right there right??? Did he actually go for the gun or was Brown struggling to get away and hit the cop in the process?? Am I right so far??

Remember, the PD has admitted that at this moment WILSON DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE "ROBBERY."

This was the part that shocked me. It's also the part that is really going to be the big sh*t sandwich for the PD in this case.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yes, let's shoot someone nine times because of what we think they thought we thought was happening?

Sounds like top-notch police work to me!

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

Remember, the PD has admitted that at this moment WILSON DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE "ROBBERY."

But I bet Brown and Johnson *Thought* he "knew".

How could two guys who just has an "altercation" in a store Not think the store called the cops?

Easy, because the cop didn't say anything about it. He just told them to get out of the road and then started to pass them by until either Brown said something or whatever that pissed him off and made him stop and reverse.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think you need to see her last two video posts.

I think there is some compelling information there.

I think it matters to people that can't see the big picture and argue like child over irrelevant minutia. Let them do that in court.

We should be spending more time demanding change in proceedure. Unless they were waiting for an expert they should have spoken to the family sooner about the medical situation. That crowd was already a mob.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think you need to see her last two video posts, here and here.

I think there is some compelling information there.

Yes, no one knew they were being recorded when, well, the guy doing the recording, and at least two other people, are holding up their camera phones and talking about what happened.

We can't believe the eyewitness testimony of the two ladies who don't corroborate our "teen thug attacks innocent cop" narrative, but WE CAN trust garbled audio on cell phone video from another "witness" that we don't even know.

Again, really great police junior detective narrative-building work there.

I think the Ferguson PD needs to hire Libertygal to do their PR from here on out ... she's a lot better at it than they are.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I had to star ya on that one!!! Never let a double standard go unchecked!! Good for you Gryphon66, I like your style!!

2nd.

a reply to: Iamthatbish

Oh, I definitely have to agree with everything you said!

Listening to that video, and watching from their perspective, I wholeheartedly agree. What does bother me, however, is how the people stood there discussing the attack, how Michael did what he did, but didn't fault him at all.

Had I been there, I would likely not have made it out alive. What could they possibly be thinking, openly discussing how Michael hit the cop, tried to take his gun, doubled back on the cop, and that's all ok, and poor Michael?

That takes a special kinda thinkin', I don't care who ya are.

Instead, all they said was, "Police shot that kid", "Police killed him?", and exactly as you said, blind to the other conversation happening right in their midst, group thinked themselves into a frenzy.

From the timing on that video, and the timing in a twitter that was posted, the burglary news spread like wildfire. It was literally minutes.

Within mere more minutes, eruptions of violence began. And it was all blamed on the cops and the QT. (Wrongly) Even though the information was wrong it was what they operated under, as did many watching this unfold, myself included. Even with this news, it would be impossible to convince many that he didn't rob the QT, but the other store, instead.

Sadly, the police had to do both crowd control on a growingly upset group of people, but also do a crime scene investigation, which took a lot of time. People were obviously upset, because his body was left a long time. But, sadly, they had to follow protocol, or risk contamination or loss of evidence. That's how it has to be done.

I am sure we have all been in snarled up traffic after a fatality, and it can last for hours. Same with this. It hurts to see it, it seems callous, but it was as much for Michael as it was for Darren. Both sides have a right to a fair collection of evidence at a crime scene.

I also have viewed multiple videos and photos of his body, and I do not see any visualization of a shot in his back. His shirt was white, and it would had blood, both from entry wounds and exit wounds.

I am rather surprised by this, as police ammo, usually hollow points, would have caused a noticeable exit wound. I cannot obviously say how many bullet wounds there are, but, I can tell you if there is a back wound at all, it is a grazing wound. The most obvious appears to be a head wound. That is easily determined by the blood on the street seeming to have flowed from the head. Head wounds have a proclivity to bleed, heavily and quickly.

This would all match the officer's testimony as given on the radio show I posted.

It's terribly sad for all involved, however, I hold the least amount if sympathy for Dorian, though, it remains to be seen, maybe the greatest of respect if he turns states evidence.

That part, we shall see.

originally posted by: Libertygal

I am rather surprised by this, as police ammo, usually hollow points, would have caused a noticeable exit wound. I cannot obviously say how many bullet wounds there are, but, I can tell you if there is a back wound at all, it is a grazing wound. The most obvious appears to be a head wound. That is easily determined by the blood on the street seeming to have flowed from the head. Head wounds have a proclivity to bleed, heavily and quickly.

This would all match the officer's testimony as given on the radio show I posted.

Wait. I haven't heard his report on this. What did he say about the fatal shot?? Did he say that Brown was coming at him and he shot him in the head??? Or how did he explain the events of the actual shooting and especially the head shot??

a reply to: Gryphon66

Omg. No one is saying to TRUST any of them! The point is to gather as much evidence as possible and review the common links. The common statements tend to be the truths. This is not new, and there is no fault to be had in reviewing any and everything available.

You seem to be very hurt that things may not be going how you would like. I am truly sorry for that, but, you can quit attacking me, and my ethics, morals, standards, or anything else.

Quit making this about me, it is NOT.

Honestly, I am getting sick of feeling like I have to defend myself because my opinion is different than yours. I am not going to do it anymore.

If you have something to say about links or evidence, fine, otherwise, leave me alone.

Don't forget the average person doesn't know the difference between an entry wound and an exit wound. And seriously this matters, we don't know mental states of either man. We do however expect the LEO to be properly trained to defuse situations. That's my biggest concern. This just flamed and flamed. Once it went bad it kept getting worse.

a reply to: Libertygal

a reply to: Gryphon66

Seems like the only narrative you are interested in is the one that confirms your view of what happened.

The off camera remarks by the one guy clearly tells a different version from the one told by the 'two ladies'.

You can't just wish that away.

Moreover, it matches the account given by the LEO's acquaintance on the radio program.

a reply to: Libertygal

Attack you? What in the $%@#? I point out a few places where your galloping narrative to damn Michael Brown runs thin and I'm questioning your ethics and morals and standards?

I think you may need some sleep from your heavy work schedule you mentioned.

And please, you are NOT just "reviewing the evidence" you are, as I have none too subtly pointed out, building a very specific narrative.

And how exactly again, are "things not going as I would like"? Do you think the FBI is going to read your posts here and wrap up the investigation? "Well, Libertygal has solved another one boys ..."

Or would "boyz" fit your very fine use of local color better, perhaps?

Don't defend yourself, because you're not being attacked.

Deal with the flaws in your logic that have been pointed out. That is, if your'e really only after "the truth."

a reply to: loam

I don't think people understand that this is not cut and dry. This is completely murky AND everyone is wasting effort arguing instead asking for change.