Dorian Johnson Recants Media Statement ?

I don't know what happened yet, and neither does anybody, really, except for the cop, and the witness dude.

Two sides to the story, so I'll wait until both sides are made clear.

However, there is something I am very curious about, and I haven't heard anything about it since "the friends" initial statement.

He remarked in the first interview, I think with Wolf Blitzer, that the "car door 'ricocheted ' and knocked the officer back down into the vehicle. I would love to see that reenacted. A car door "ricocheted". Hm. I just can't think how that happened.

a reply to: angeldoll
Let me explain how that happened. The cop pulled up next to the obstruction in the roadway and when the 'hood rats started being defiant and mouthy the cop started to get out of his vehicle. That's when Big Load pushed the vehicle door shut on the officers face. His injury is to the left eye I believe. Then the criminal reached into the vehicle and attempted to disarm the officer causing a struggle for his gun. It went off and at that point Big Load was attempting to murder a police officer. I think Big Mike had gang aspirations for his future, not college.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Libertygal

Wow. I guess I have misunderstood you all along or missed the posts where you were saying this.

Sorry, but that really is a stretch.

Ok. Let me tell the story once again.

My ex and his friend attempted to rob an elderly couple at a mall. They had a knife. The elderly man had a gun. In the attempted robbery, the elderly man pulled out the gun, shooting the friend between the eyes, killing him. My ex ran.

I hear about it in the news. I call police and inform them of who it might be.

He is charged with muder2, sentenced to 22 years in prison.

I am states' evidence, and given immunity for my statement.

Did my ex pull the trigger? No.
Did my ex kill his friend? No.
Did I? No.
Was I even there? No.
Why did I need immunity, and have to turn states' evidnce?

originally posted by: kalunom
If this is true and Wilson is not charged, Ferguson is going to explode. Even if this is not true and it starts circulating - Ferguson is going to explode.

I hate to say it, but perhaps that's exactly what needs to happen to get a damn "Social Reset" on this situation. I was employed by the City of Los Angeles. And when those verdicts came in on the Officers who were charged in the beating of Rodney King it was decided buy the Police Chief Darrel Gates to let the crowd go loose and wear themselves out... Then after several days the Guard moved in. The masses vented the anger and calmed. However it cost the City a Billion bucks...

Dorian Johnson has a lawyer right now. Why would he need to recant his report?
That is the one thing holding me up on this.
Could someone maybe explain that part to me.
Just an honest question.

I see right wing con. webpage being sited here. I don't trust it.
But do not have enough information to make a debate here. Other than my question ^^^^

Oh what a tangled web we weave,when first we practice to decieve...

by some smart person...

originally posted by: scattergun

originally posted by: kalunom
If this is true and Wilson is not charged, Ferguson is going to explode. Even if this is not true and it starts circulating - Ferguson is going to explode.

I hate to say it, but perhaps that's exactly what needs to happen to get a damn "Social Reset" on this situation. I was employed by the City of Los Angeles. And when those verdicts came in on the Officers who were charged in the beating of Rodney King it was decided buy the Police Chief Darrel Gates to let the crowd go loose and wear themselves out... Then after several days the Guard moved in. The masses vented the anger and calmed. However it cost the City a Billion bucks...

I hate to agree with you but, I believe you're right. If Officer Wilson is not in a jail cell when the facts finally come out - guilty or not guilty...people are going to scream racism and injustice. Chaos will follow.

A difference I see here is that in the case of the L.A. riots in '92 we didn't have all the social media attention (livestreams, facebook, twitter, etc.). I fear that this "venting" could spread far and wide.

a reply to: Mikeultra

You have such wonderful support for your human family. It is mind boggling. Your words drip with absolute brotherhood. If Jesus was here today, he would be proud. You have that whole Golden Rule thing figured out.

Perhaps you should listen to those mixed couples, they may be right.

Clearly, no racial bias in your opinion on the events that transpired. Lol

Some even smarter person said, "Don't you think if they had enough evidence, or probable cause, they would have arrested Darren Wilson by now?"

a reply to: Libertygal
Now that we know that the police agree that Wilson fired a shot while Johnson and Brown were running away, how do you think that looks? They don't outright say it in the NYT article, but they say he didn't hit anyone with that shot. Some people might speculate that this means he was trying to hit someone. I won't go so far as to agree with that, but you've talked some about speculation, so...

Suppose that shot was aimed at them...
What are the rules of engagement for firing on a suspect running away?
Last I understood, I believe the rule is that the suspect must be a clear and present danger.

a reply to: Greven

563.046.
A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.
The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.
A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested
(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
( b ) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
( c ) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.
.4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

a reply to: Domo1

I haven't seen any reference connecting Wilson's orbital fracture (if that has indeed been confirmed) with his firing on Brown.

If Wilson had an orbital fracture I imagine that would impair his vision at least somewhat. Would this be grounds for him to say he wasn't certain if Brown had a weapon or if anyone in the vicinity was in immediate danger, thus justifying him firing his weapon? Looking at the autopsy pictures of Brown (shots mostly along his right side), seems to me he wasn't getting off very accurate shots (perhaps implying impaired vision).

Please keep in mind, I'm not taking Wilson's or Brown's side. Just trying to make some sense of this #.

a reply to: Domo1
Ah, thank you. In that case:
563.046.2(b) seems inapplicable.
563.046.2(c) may be applicable, but given that he is unarmed it seems less applicable.
I had forgotten the felony exception...
563.046.2(a) could be applicable given that the charge in the store robbery would have been a felony charge. However, for it to be applicable, then Wilson must have reasonably believed that he had committed the robbery.

Interesting... perhaps another reason why the police released the surveillance footage when they did.

Everyone knows it was Mark Fuhrman in an O.J. mask!!!

2nd

a reply to: kalunom

I'm not entirely sure.

Perhaps xCathdra will stop by. Knows his stuff better than anyone I've seen on this site regarding use of force and case law.

Are we 100% that Wilson fired while Brown was running away? I think that given the circumstances it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to think the kid was armed and a danger to others in the community. I mean he had apparently just assaulted a police officer and grappled for the officers gun.

One thing I will say is that I'm not going to fault a guy too much that just had his face bashed in and may have been suffering some serious issues with vision. Even if he messed up, I can certainly see how he could have in that situation. Perhaps he thought he saw a weapon, perhaps he was tripping balls from the adrenaline and injuries and thought Brown was running back towards him (I doubt that). We really need to hear his side of the story. I think it will answer a lot of questions.

Adrenaline pumping, fearing for your life, dazed, possible vision problems, a very odd response from a young man you were just telling to get out of the street...

a reply to: Domo1
We are reasonably certain now, that Wilson fired at least one shot while Brown and Johnson ran, yes:
Shooting Accounts Differ as Holder Schedules Visit to Ferguson - NYTimes

As Officer Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away. The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone, according to law enforcement officials.

This is more certain than anonymous reports of Wilson's injuries, at any rate.

a reply to: Domo1

Thank you for the reply.

I'm fairly sure that no one (perhaps not even Wilson himself) knows 100% what happened there.

But yes, hearing Wilson's side of the story would be a great benefit. As it is, we and thousands of others sit and speculate as things become more and more distorted with the passage of time.

a reply to: kalunom

I'm fairly sure that no one (perhaps not even Wilson himself) knows 100% what happened there.

I think that's probably the most accurate thing I've read about this whole mess.

a reply to: Greven

Ahh. Appreciate it. It's getting to be a pain in the ass keeping up to date. Especially when I get sidetracked so easily.

Why is the public told little bits and pieces slowly and almost accurately but yet the people are divided 50/50 because they all have their bias? Why? Can the media people not tell us what happened? Then why tell us mangled bits to lead us astray? They always start out with a po lil black chile guun down in the streets. Always whitey did it. Then a public outcry and riot. Then whitey. Then the Reverend Mastadon. Then the extinction. Po lil black chile gun star right.