CNN's Anderson Cooper Interviews Michael Brady, New Michael Brown Shooting Witness

a reply to: Millers
I believe the eyewitnesses are biased. They hate the cops, and are sick of them. Fact is there are reports of the FPD pulling some shady stuff in the past. I also believe the cops hate the residents of this neighborhood and are sick of them, fact is this neighborhood is full of gangs and violent criminals who have been known to pull some shady stuff in the past.
All things being equal, before all the evidence is in, I have to support the narrative that supports logic and common sense, especially as the original story falls apart, piece by piece, and.... unintentional mistruth by unintentional mis truth.

a reply to: Domo1
Snitches get stitches.....not one of those people in that complex will tell the truth out of fear. So glad I heard the guys version (in the background) matching the cops on that video....betcha he changed his story by now too...

a reply to: abe froman

You don't have to support anything but the truth. You were quick to jump to conclusions and claim you know for a fact that the eyewitnesses were lying. I can see your own bias, but very little logic or common sense. I agree with you that everyone should wait until Wilson has a chance to tell his part of the story. As of now it is only certain that we don't know what really happened

a reply to: Millers

I agree with you that everyone should wait until Wilson has a chance to tell his part of the story.

It would be great if that police report would come out, so it can be put under the microscope and picked apart.
I guess if we find ANY inconsistencies in that once it comes out, we get to toss it out the window

a reply to: abe froman
I don't feel that it is a personal attack, but since you seem to and because of this post I have removed it.

a reply to: abe froman
Not exactly. There is a second matter after the first, at the top of that page I referenced.

a reply to: GrevenI don't know what you mean but let's talk about that thread in that thread, ok?

a reply to: Millers
Since the stories don't match I know for a fact that some witnesses are lying...that's how logic works.

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Millers
Since the stories don't match I know for a fact that some witnesses are lying...that's how logic works.

I never put it past people to lie but I also know that when 20 people see the same thing, you're going to end up with 20 slightly different accounts. Memories are very mutable, imperfect, compressed representations of the past. Even in real time, the mind is always busily filling in gaps. With each repetition of the narrative, things tend to get streamlined — tweaked, inserted and deleted. It's natural, it's not an unknown phenomena and it doesn't mean that somebody is being intentionally deceitful.

I don't think Michael Brady seems like he is lying. He said he couldn't tell exactly what was going on at the window of the SUV, that's plausible. He admitted that he didn't hear the shot from inside the car. He said that Wilson got out of the car and gave chase, immediately firing his firearm after exiting the vehicle.

NY Times

However, law enforcement officials say witnesses and forensic analysis have shown that Officer Wilson did sustain an injury during the struggle in the car.

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.

That part seems to check out at this point. That's already a serious problem if it's true. He said that he then ran outside so that he could try to record it on his cell phone and by the time he got out, Michael Brown was doubled over. He freely admitted that he didn't see Michael Brown's arms raised though from the same NYT source:

According to his account to the Ferguson police, Officer Wilson said that Mr. Brown had lowered his arms and moved toward him, law enforcement officials said. Fearing that the teenager was going to attack him, the officer decided to use deadly force.

That seems to support statements by people like Tiffany Mitchell, who we know was immediately interviewed by the police before she could be influenced by other publicized accounts, that Brown's hands were at some point up.

In either case, Michael Brady's account is not inconsistent with either. He said it looked like Brown was going down, he staggered a step or two and Wilson shot him several more times. This would not be inconsistent with the Baden autopsy. I obviously haven't seen his original statements to the police nor do I know when they were given other than to say that it was prior to his name (Michael T. Brady) hitting the paper.

Sorry if I'm rehashing things I said earlier in the thread, but my point is that I don't think that Michael T. Brady is being deceitful.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It doesn`t matter if it was intentional or not what matters is he was Wrong, now we have to wonder how many other things is he wrong about?
well, he is wrong about brown being shot while standing next to the car as he claimed in his original statement.
so now we have 2 things that he is wrong about,he was wrong about something that happened at the beginning of the confrontation and wrong about something that happened during the middle of the confrontation so I expect that he is wrong about what happened at the end of the confrontation.
in fact i believe he didn`t see much of anything I believe he was too busy hiding behind that car and #ting his pants.I think much of what he is testifying to as fact is actually just assumptions he made based on what he heard.

a reply to: Tardacus
Did he say, specifically, that Brown suffered a bullet wound to the back?

If so, please quote it.

a reply to: Greven

I`ll do better than just giving you a quote, watch and hear him say it in his own words on this video:


tinylink.net...

He says:

" the officer pursued my friend,then he fired another shot which struck my friend in the back"

we know he`s wrong about that based on the autopsy.

This is all old news you really need to get up to speed on this situation.

a reply to: Tardacus
Thank you, it is useful for the truth to have such a quote.

Is this up to speed for you:

According to his account to the Ferguson police, Officer Wilson said that Mr. Brown had lowered his arms and moved toward him, law enforcement officials said. Fearing that the teenager was going to attack him, the officer decided to use deadly force.

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Millers Did you not know that originally it was claimed that Brown was shot in the back and it has been proven that that was a lie? I gave you a straight answer, now you are just being obtuse. Do you have something to add? If not please, with all due respect

All over these threads I keep seeing "it was claimed that Brown was shot in the back and it has been proven that that was a lie"

Consider this.
All witnesses from both sides agree that the cop fired shots that missed Mr Brown.
If ANY of those shots were fired while Brown was running away then its very likely witnesses would assume Mr Brown had been shot in the back!
That does not make those witnesses liars, it simply means those bullets missed him.

I posted this earlier in another thread. This is entirely a speculative story, taking many of the eyewitness reports into account, as well as the cop's alleged story from the 3rd hand radio interview with "Josie". Also, it takes into account that I was a personal witness to a kid shot dead in the street in front of my own home as a boy some 30+ years ago. That shooting also followed a store robbery down the street. In that case, the store owner chased the kid out and into the street. Then shot him with a shotgun, twice (once in the back and once in the front after he turned). I saw this killing, first-hand at the age of about 13 from my front door. I too was faced with a similar dilemma, but chose to pursue additional education and got out of that hole, even at the chiding and ridicule of some of my street friends.

Taking this all into account, I wonder could this be a case of an on-the-spot decision to commit suicide-by-cop by Brown?
Please hear me out first, and read to the end before replying.

Known items:
1. He was on a road to go to a college (or some form of post-high-school education) - GOOD (in our eyes) and BAD (can be seen as a sell-out to the street thugs)
2. He lived in a very difficult/bad area (I sort of understand some of the though processes as explained I also grew up in a similar area)
3. The probability is very high that it was him on the store video and he ripped off some cigars from the local convenience store (one who may have seen him in there before)
4. He shoved the store clerk as seen in the video on his way out of the store
5. He and his friend were walking down the middle of the street nearby the store (one questions why in the middle of the street, could it be bravado over the robbery they just got away with?)
6. A police officer stops them and (allegedly) asks them to get out of the middle of the street
7. The officer is injured in some way (this is one of the fuzzy conflicting aspects of this story). Let's imagine his injury to his eye socket was from some altercation with Brown
8. Brown is now a distance away from the officer and told to stop (another fuzzy aspect of the story so I'll skip the "how he got there")
9. At some point, for reasons unknown for sure, 6 shots are fired, and Brown is now lying dead in the street a much shorter distance from the officer than before the shots are fired

SPECULATION:
Now, looking at #1-4, I have known kids I grew up with that had all the potential to raise themselves out of that life, and were pressured by family to do so.....however, they were equally pressured by friends and other people in the community to be the tough guy (being that big, kinda sets that expectation in itself usually). Could he have been internally conflicted and it was that day he made his decision to stay in the community and boost his rep by stealing those cigars. A "light crime" to be sure, but one that demonstrates to the street that he is not a sell-out.

As for #5-7, perhaps feeling proud of his actions in stealing the cigars and successfully intimidating that clerk, he was strutting down the center of the street. Could he have been "basking in that glory" in some way? Then the officer appears and stops them. Not knowing if Wilson (the cop) knows what he just did, he panics and has a physical altercation with the officer and the officer gets injured as a result. Brown realizes he is now truly screwed beyond belief, much more than the petty theft and strong arm action with the clerk. Brown and his friend run from the officer, leaving him injured in the cruiser.

Which brings us to #8-9, the cop, rises out of the cruiser, injured, and gives chase, removing his sidearm at the same time. The cop at this point has made a decision might have to kill the perpetrator (still not knowing for sure who he is). I say this because typical firearms training drills into you that you only un-holster your sidearm if you intend to use it and prepared to kill whatever you get in the sights, otherwise it stays holstered and you "cover" it with your hand in preparation. At this point, the officer stops and fires one shot, striking the fleeing Brown in the right forearm from behind.

ASIDE: I say this after seeing an interview with one of the examiners that did the 2nd autopsy describing that wound in particular. When asked by the interviewer if it was from the front or back, he explains that it could be either. He demonstrates that the shot entered from the back of the forearm....but does not guarantee it was fired from behind. He does this by raising his arm as if in a surrender position, exposing the back of his forearm to the front. SO, this wound could have meant he WAS hit from behind while running, or if he was facing the officer with hands raised.

Brown turns around, and is now CONVINCED the cop knows hat he did, at the store....and has another decision on his hands. His fight-or-flight response kicks in. He has all but trashed his chance at school now. He has disappointed those pushing him in that direction. It will all come out now. In this altered state of mind, one option appears to him to "save face" by being killed by the cop and becoming famous on the street. In the spur of the moment, he makes a fateful decision to begin approaching the cop. Seeing this, the cop's own fight-or-flight response kicks in, and he fires at what he decides is an approaching assailant that has shown he means bodily harm to him. Brown, not stopping (since he is a big guy with adrenaline in full flow) continues toward the cop in what must have looked threatening. The cop fires repeatedly as the assailant continues forward toward him.

NOTE: This could explain the typical barrel drift/rise pattern of the consecutive shots rising up toward the head area.

Brown, knowing he will definitely be dead if he stops, now puts his head down and rushes the cop to tackle him (think of a football player that leans over at the waist, head down and arms extended to tackle the opponent with the ball). As he does this his arms raise up and could be interpreted by the bystanders as a sort-of surrender position.

ASIDE: Does anyone know if Brown played football at all? Being that big, he would have made a great defensive tackle. If so, that training could explain this aspect of the speculative story.

Being struck in the shoulder area, he drops to his knees, still having full forward momentum toward the cop. Out of reflex, Brown looks up as he falls. At this point the cop fires again striking Brown in the right eye socket, the bullet deflecting downward toward his jawbone, out, and into his right clavicle. Brown's head drops as a natural reaction to this shot as he continues to fall forward. The cop fires one final shot striking Brown in the top of the head....killing him. Brown drops completely to the pavement.

CONCLUSION:
As I said, this is all speculation, based upon all the witness testimony I've heard and read, the basic layout of the area, the economic state of the area, and watching the type of reactions that have occurred since.

It, to me, seems a plausible account, and can explain some of the conflicting stories and recollections. As we all know, eyewitness testimony is fair at best, and when observed by so many, with totally different recollections, my guess is the truth is somewhere between all the recollections. Taking a small bit here, another bit froom there, add in my own personal experience.

a reply to: Krakatoa

That's not what my current speculative hypothesis is but I appreciate the amount of objective thought you put into it.

originally posted by: abe froman
So he was moving toward the officer and his hands weren't up. Why is it that out of all these witnesses NO ONE saw whether or not Brown charged the officer? Witnesses before, witnesses after, but for some reason the 10 seconds in the middle was observed by no one... convenient.

but this contradicts the thug account and it comes out more than a week later so it is invalid.

Just because he only saw him at the point Brown lowered his arms as he doubled over, doesn't mean they weren't raised before that. That moment was the last of his life. He probably no longer had the ability to hold them up.

Maybe Brown's arms "raised" was simply his reaction to the situation.

He may have been just "Waving" his arms up and down in disgust.

Like a "wtf not again" moment.

He was waving his arms around in the store a few minutes prior.

And he did appear to have a little bit of an "Attitude" didn't he.

a reply to: VoidHawk

exactly! now your starting to get what i`ve been saying.
At least one of the witnesses (Dorian) and probably more are making statements based not on what they actually saw but on assumptions they have made based on what they heard.
so,we have to wonder what else Dorian is basing on his assumptions rather than what he actually saw.

I`m not blaming him for not being more accurate in his statement, it was a totally unexpected event that probably happened very quickly,so it`s understandable that he isn`t being %100 accurate.
it would be more helpful if all the witnesses would differentiate between what they actually saw and heard and what they assumed.
for example:
The officer pursued my friend, then he shot again and i assumed he shot my friend in the back.

I wonder what smaller details of the incident are being based on assumptions rather than on true facts of what the witnesses actually saw and heard?

I think one witness said that they saw the officer shoot at brown while brown was running away and that brown lurched when the bullet hit him, well we know that isn`t true.The witness thought they saw him lurch because that is what they assumed would happened if he was hit in the back with a bullet.

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Millers Did you not know that originally it was claimed that Brown was shot in the back and it has been proven that that was a lie? I gave you a straight answer, now you are just being obtuse. Do you have something to add? If not please, with all due respect

All over these threads I keep seeing "it was claimed that Brown was shot in the back and it has been proven that that was a lie"

Consider this.
All witnesses from both sides agree that the cop fired shots that missed Mr Brown.
If ANY of those shots were fired while Brown was running away then its very likely witnesses would assume Mr Brown had been shot in the back!
That does not make those witnesses liars, it simply means those bullets missed him.

was he shot in the back? NO.

a reply to: abe froman

Did you misread what the post you responded to said?
Why is it so crazy to believe that people saw shots get fired, brown jerk and turn around and thought that he got hit?
It's not like they got to go up to his body after and check and see if he really did get shot.
If they walked up and saw that he didn't get shot in the back and then said that he did, then they would be liars.