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.

 

Dorian Johnson Recants Media Statement ?

page: 9
32
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Mikeultra

Then he would be a witness for the defense which cannot offer immunity AFAIK.




posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Mikeultra

You keep hearing about civil rights when it involves the police because its a factor in every single thing law enforcement does when in contact with the citizens.

IE did the police violate a persons civil rights by their actions while acting under color of law.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
Thank you for the reply and explanations. I do admit that the surveillance video has completely convinced me of my opinion and to give 100% credibility to Officer Wilson's version of what happened.


edit on 20-8-2014 by Mikeultra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Libertygal

Has this information been verified by any credible media outlet?

They posted this yesterday and as far as I can tell, no one else is running it yet.

So I'm not sure if this should be considered credible information yet.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Yeah I can't believe this isn't headline news if true. Dang diddly internets.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

No, but this has been: 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.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
Missouri law apparently doesn't even designate someone participating in/aiding the commission of a crime as an accomplice, despite the police report.


Once again, this is not true.

Read this 2014 Missouri case, which should spell it out for you.




Appellant’s convictions were based on accomplice liability. “The law of accessory liability emanates from statute, as construed by the courts.” State v. Barnum, 14 S.W.3d 587, 590 (Mo.banc 2000). Although Missouri at one time made a distinction between principals and accessories to crime, Missouri has since eliminated such a distinction with respect to accomplice liability; therefore, all persons who act in concert to commit a crime are equally guilty. Sistrunk, 414 S.W.3d at 596-97.

Section 562.041.1(2)4 provides that a person is criminally responsible for the conduct of another when “[e]ither before or during the commission of an offense with the purpose of promoting the commission of an offense, he aids or agrees to aid or attempts to aid such other person in planning, committing or attempting to commit the offense.” Accordingly, “[t]o make a submissible case of accomplice liability, the State must show that the defendant associated himself with the venture or participated in the crime in some manner, but the State need not show that the defendant personally committed every element of the crime.” State v. Young, 369 S.W.3d 52, 55 (Mo.App. E.D. 2012). Any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, demonstrating affirmative participation in the crime charged and committed is sufficient to support a conviction. Sistrunk, 414 S.W.3d at 597.

www.courts.mo.gov...



So the only issue in Johnson's case was whether he "associated himself with the venture or participated in the crime in some manner".
edit on 20-8-2014 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: loam
Can you read your own quote please:

Although Missouri at one time made a distinction between principals and accessories to crime, Missouri has since eliminated such a distinction with respect to accomplice liability; therefore, all persons who act in concert to commit a crime are equally guilty

No distinction between principals and accessories, so accomplice ceases to be a term as all 'accomplices' are now instead equally guilty. Why do you persist in this chain of hypothetical situations to arrive at this conclusion that the police have repeatedly said is wrong?
edit on 16Wed, 20 Aug 2014 16:35:10 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: XXX777
Yeah I can't believe this isn't headline news if true. Dang diddly internets.

No, and the last update I have, they radio station has removed the link. I don't know the circumstances why or when. We will have to wait now, to see the truth bear out.

I feel certainly it is a possibility that Dorian is likely to be called to the GJ to testify.

I also heard that Darren Wilson has been extended an invititation to the GJ. Hoping that both have excellent security when doing so.

Hearing that the GJ ends in October, so we will have to wait until then, possibly, for any decision they hand down.

A PA can go to a GJ more than once, but cannot go to a newly seated GJ. As far as I know, they cannot extend a GJ, but, under a state of emergency, and effectively, Martial Law, things ate drastically different. I am not sure what they can change, under those circumstances.

In the meantime, there is a huge kerfuffle about the Gov. Nixon statement about aggressive prosecution from the video, as opposed to aggressive investigation, and another unnamed source from the PD is talking about the severe beating that Darren Wilson suffered.

www.foxnews.com...

I had to sleep all day, and work two 12 hour graveyard shifts the next two days.

Will check in as I am able.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven


originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: loam
Can you read your own quote please:

No distinction between principals and accessories, so accomplice ceases to be a term as all 'accomplices' are now instead equally guilty. Why do you persist in this chain of hypothetical situations to arrive at this conclusion that the police have repeatedly said is wrong?


One more time:

The statute doesn't eliminate the concept of 'accomplice liability' but rather the distinction between principals and accessories.

Moreover, re-read the first sentence in the quote of the Missouri 2014 case posted above.



Appellant’s convictions were based on accomplice liability.


edit on 20-8-2014 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Sure. You Got It.

Yeah. "Those Special True Bills" were "Observed" too. And I know what they mean. I've been "measuring" human rights. I figured out the principal of Coram Nobis.

Now, you may want to re-read what I posted on this thread. Those fancy blue words? Those are links supporting my position, in detail.

I am clearly stating the following: That BOTH parties here have rights. And the law, needs to be followed for both sides; But, the officer is innocent, until proven guilty. Amendment 5 of the Bill of Rights makes it crystal clear.

However, the Current Missouri Grand Jury pool is probably STACKED in favor of the Government, and a special one must be consulted and used.

THAT IS IT. If the officer acted outside his duties as mandated by the law, he has no immunity. If he was following his Oath, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. It would exonerate the officer, and we move on with life.

It's that simple. Fair. Balanced. Lady Justice is blind. Period. Two wrongs do NOT make a right and I take Oaths SERIOUSLY. Equal Protection Applies, no matter how stupid the other party may have acted. Humans have a right to be treated with dignity. And that right, stems from the US Constitution and multiple signed treaties.. No Statute or policy can override it.

Do you have a problem with an equal justice system? Equality in all things is required for our legal system to function as designed.

I've learned not to state fact as opinion. The easiest way? Talk and link the supporting argument as fact. Which is exactly what I've done.

Article 6 Is Supreme.

PS, my "New" Observation. Who is in charge according to the Missouri Constitution? It is in Article 1 Section 1. Funny how that is right at the top of the document. Could you justify how tanks in the street is good for the whole? In what world? Not mine.

Keep your Statutes. They mean squat when the light of the United States Constitution, State Constitutions, and Treaties shines on them. Lawful Statutes are to be made in persuance to all three. They together are supreme. That is just the way it is. Otherwise, what do they qualify as? Unconstitutional.
edit on 20-8-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   
The Governor should definitely NOT have said aggressive prosecution. If there's a basis for him saying that he should have stated what that basis is... but more likely he's just flapping his politician lips and saying what sounds good.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: loam
Suppose you're right, again - what does it change?

The police department of Ferguson - the police chief himself - have said he won't be charged and that he didn't commit a crime, so how is he an accomplice?



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Wasn't the whole point whether it was plausible that Johnson, in exchange for not being charged, would turn state witness to support Wilson's version?

First you claimed he couldn't be legally charged for Brown's convenience store actions, because Missouri didn't have an accomplice law, when in fact it does. The only issue was a factual one- whether he "associated himself with the venture or participated in the crime in some manner".

Then you claimed it would be impossible for the Chief to cut such a deal without publicly disclosing it.

Bottom line is, while it remains only speculation at this point, it's not impossible that these things could have happened.

We should learn soon enough whether the basic story of this thread becomes true.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: loam
No, this whole thing started as a hypothetical that Johnson lied and so gave inconsistent statements, justifying posters' classification of Johnson as an accomplice. I do not like such speculation.

Not quite.

Missouri law apparently doesn't even designate someone participating in/aiding the commission of a crime as an accomplice, despite the police report.

An accomplice is, very simply, someone who helps another commit a crime. Missouri seems to have a broad interpretation of 'helps' according to the case you had cited earlier, going so far as to say that inconsistent statements are evidence of guilt (though that case involved someone driving another around shooting people). Since there is apparently no distinction between principals and accessories, then an accomplice ceases to realistically exist.

The surveillance footage shows no help by Johnson. Brown casually handed a box to Johnson, and nothing appeared wrong. After the altercation at the counter, he gave back the box he was handed by Brown before the altercation at the counter. He did not touch the clerk, either.

The Ferguson Police Department said Johnson was cleared of any charges. The Ferguson Chief of Police unequivocally said that Johnson committed no crime. The Police Dept. and Chief could be lying, I guess, but I don't see how that helps anyone involved as those statements are a matter of public record.

It's all speculation to justify the agenda to paint Johnson as a criminal.
edit on 17Wed, 20 Aug 2014 17:41:34 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Well, it is looking like Johnson might have lied about brown's confrontation with Wilson.

Confirmed by another source:

Missouri cop was badly beaten before shooting Michael Brown, says source




Darren Wilson, the Ferguson, Mo., police officer whose fatal shooting of Michael Brown touched off more than a week of demonstrations, suffered severe facial injuries, including an orbital (eye socket) fracture, and was nearly beaten unconscious by Brown moments before firing his gun, a source close to the department's top brass told FoxNews.com.





edit on 20-8-2014 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: loam
Oh goody, another anonymous source.


Meanwhile, the fact that police have now stated Wilson fired a shot while Brown and Johnson were running away seems to corroborate many witness accounts.
edit on 20Wed, 20 Aug 2014 20:58:59 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Posting here to bookmark this in my ATS.
I just got done reading the whole thing.
And I am still confused here. I am not going to say anything till more information comes out.
And this can be 100% confirmed by many sources.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

My discussion of charges concerning Johnson never have, and never will, have anything to do with the store. Why you keep bring this into it, truly befuddles me.

I have, and have from the beginning, stated that Dorian could be charged with murder, as if he had committed it himself. I did not use the word accomplice, the police chief did, in fact, on the very same day, in the very same statement, that he stated that Dorian Johnson would not face charges for the robbery/burglary/theft (whatever term YOU want to use, the police chief used burglary).

Do you understand?
I never once said he would be charged with what event happened at the store. It has zip, zero, zilch, to do with this.

In fact, the police have zip, zero, zilch, to do with this.

My speculation, OMGZ?! I said SPECULATE!!! Has always been from the BEGINNING that Dorian may well be brought up on the same charges as the cop. So, if they went after the cop for murder1, that is a capitol offense, a FEDERAL CRIME.

Not tried in a municipal, but a Federal Court.

Per his attorney, Dorian is a Federal Witness.


GASP?! Omgz. Do they match?

See. The police do not have anything to do with it. The Feds do.

For all that is good and holy, please, drop the store, and all that deflection. It is just not healthy.

edit on 20-8-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 09:17 PM
link   
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.


edit on 20-8-2014 by loam because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join