Michael Brown Shooting: Critical Analysis Of The Cellphone Video Witness

I'm sure that anyone who is following the Michael Brown shooting coverage is aware of the cellphone video purportedly capturing the statements of an eyewitness to the shooting who was apparently unaware that he was being overheard.

The video was first brought to widespread attention a week ago in this post on The Conservative Treehouse. The video allegedly corroborates what is presumed to be Officer Darren Wilson's account of the events as revealed by the anonymous radio show caller, identified only as "Josie" and claiming to be a friend of the Wilsons.

The video went viral within hours and was quickly disseminated along with the transcript contained in the post at The Conservative Treehouse. Before commenting, I encourage posters to visit the page. From that page, I will present two items. The first is an embedded YouTube video, with captions, of the most relevant 40 seconds of the original 10+ minute video:



The full length video can be found here.and this excerpted portion of the transcript provided by poster "sundance" who says of his own transcript:

Again, the conversation to focus on is in the background - Here’s the video and my seriously rough attempt at transcription, the important part is at 06:28 point: [ "#2" is the male eye witness ]

#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 coming 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]

The first item in the transcript that is wholly inaccurate is this (@ about 7:10 in the full length and the beginning of the 40 sec clip):

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

Listen for yourself. Nothing resembling the first part of that transcription is actually said unless you can somehow claim that "because" can somehow be taken as slang for "but him and the police was both in the truck." Also notice that the caption in the video doesn't even attempt to convey this part. Now it's possible that this is actually referring to some similar speech that occurred just prior to seven minute mark, but again, I encourage you to listen for yourself and judge if those exact words are captured by the video.

The next part of the transcription that I feel may be inaccurately interpreted deals with possible confusion over a homophone — cus (short for cousin) versus 'cause (short for because) as well as the two words sometimes reported as "double back" when it sounds a lot more like "coming back" in later transcripts:

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

This is at about 00:11 in the embedded video. The original transcript and video caption get the "coming back" portion correct in my opinion, but later transcripts on other sites have stated that this could also be "double back" (see links). The punctuation makes this further ambiguous and in my opinion, it should be:

coming back toward him 'cause the police had his gun drawn already on him

It seems like a minor difference, but it is very significant. This would seem to mean that Michael Brown was coming back (whatever that means, exactly, but it doesn't sound like "charging") because Officer Wilson had his gun drawn.

Perhaps the most egregious inaccuracy lies in the line that is alleged to be the most supportive of the "Josie" account and proof that Michael Brown was observed "charging" (or bum-rushing/bull-rushing) Officer Darren Wilson. This occurs at approximate 00:20 in the embedded 40 second video clip above. From the transcript:

#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

In the original and some subsequent copies based on the original transcript, the words "but he kept coming toward him" are bolded. Please listen for yourself. I do not hear this phrase spoken, it does not appear in the captioning, and in fact, try as I might, I can't even hear the word "toward" which would be at 00:22 in the short clip.

So what does the witness say? It could very well be:

The police — he was like — pissed off on him — dumpin' at him

I'm not 100% sure about the "pissed off" but I'm 99.9% sure it's not anything like what is being reported and perhaps even more shocking the words "dumpin' at him" is completely excluded time after time after time despite being one of the more legible portions.

Why? Because if that's the case, the preceding sentence would be describing an action BY DARREN WILSON.

Please, judge for yourself. I haven't made up my mind about the events — this witness could be mistaken or lying — just like any other witness. What I do know is that what is being foisted on people by many sources is NOT accurate. It's deliberate disinformation and regardless of what you believe about the shooting itself, this sort of thing is reprehensible.

Here are links to sites peddling this disinformation:

Brietbart - EYEWITNESS: MICHAEL BROWN RAN FROM COP CAR, 'DOUBLED BACK' AND CHARGED AT OFFICERS
The Daily Caller - Unwitting Witness Pokes Holes In Michael Brown Shooting Story
IJReview - A Witness Conversation Unknowingly Captured at the Scene of the Ferguson Shooting is a Game-Changer

How dare you speak anything other than what the media would have you believe!

In this country the uncivilized get to do whatever they want, while those who keep the law are beat down!

Star and Flag.

I agree with you.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Is the officer at fault?
Maybe. Maybe not. I'm certainly not impressed with the over-zealous crowd control reactions that the Ferguson police department demonstrated after the shooting.

Did the officer follow established policy?
That has yet to be determined.

Could the officer have taken non-lethal action or other actions to de-escalated the situation?
It's hard to second-guess split-second decisions from afar.

YOU, however, have obviously made up your mind and ineptly tried to camoflage your feelings in a veiled attempt to appear objective.

It's up to the system to impartially review and make a determination - not race-baiting media whores, frightened politicians trying to anger a disenchanted black electorate into getting off their butts to vote in the upcoming elections, nor an ignorant, armchair-expert public with no idea what it's like to sit in the fishbowl of a squad car under constant scrutiny and judgment.

However it falls, the lives of two human beings, their families, and an entire community have been damaged forever.

Yes, I do care.

a reply to: StreetGlide

1. What keeps your (rude and misplaced) comments from falling under "an ignorant, armchair-expert public" rating as well?

2. If the answer to that question involves your own alleged experience as a LEO, didn't you choose to put yourself in that "fishbowl of a squad car under constant scrutiny and judgment"? I mean, public service is not mandatory, last time I checked. Further, let's assume you were "a good cop." Are you saying there are no bad ones?

We should worship all cops as beings untouched by human failings?

Nope, sorry.

And before you or anyone else goes there, I deeply appreciate the service of our police, fire-fighters, and our military, but, we're all held to the same rule of law. Or rather, we should be.

At 7:20 in the original video you can here witness #2 say " and the dude kept coming toward the police."

you have to listen close because at the same time there is a women talking loudly.

Just because a suspect "moves toward" a LEO does NOT permit the use of lethal force.

A fleeing suspect might reasonably stop, turn around, and "move forward" to assume the kneeling or prone position as commanded.

All of you seem to have forgotten that in the US, we are innocent until proven guilty. The Fourth and Eighth Amendments to the US Constitution govern how citizens can be "handled" by authorities including the use of lethal force.

Specifics vary from municipality, to State to Federal statutes but in general, use of lethal force is governed by several factors, one of which is always: the severity of the crime at issue.

Officers are trained (or should be trained) to be specifically aware of situations in which a member of the public is trying to commit "suicide by cop." Thus ...

Police officers may justifiably escalate the use of force against a suspect - beginning with mere presence or verbal and visual commands, and concluding, if necessary, with the use of deadly force -- in direct relations to the reason for which they must apprehend that suspect.

"How Reasonable is the Reasonable Man: Police and Excessive Force (Northwestern University, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, p. 484)

a reply to: StreetGlide

There are dozens of threads about this shooting in which your sanctimonious rant would have been more appropriate. I offered an objective analysis of a video that has been linked to dozens of times in the last few days from within these threads. I did not state my opinion — and that's all it is at this point — because, like your opinion of the "armchair-expert public," it's irrelevant to the topic. I'm not suggesting that anyone should prematurely arrive at any conclusion or that Darren Wilson should be denied his right to due process.

You have a point about race-baiting media sources and the sites that have been misreporting the statements overheard in this cellphone video are among the worst offenders.

I'm sorry that you are butthurt that people have the audacity to discuss an incident that hasn't been thoroughly investigated by the authorities and adjudicated in the courts. Please save your admonishments for somebody else, I have no use for them.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Yeah I'm throwing this in before I forget. I'm watching the "zombieland" film from 2009 and Ferguson Ohio was just mentioned. Strange eh?
Maybe I need to stop coming to ATS. Lol

a reply to: EA006

I think the Michael Brown shooting was in Ferguson MO, not OH.

Still, Zombieland, very cool flick! (And nah, not coming to ATS won't help the problem, LOL)

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think you're right. Just seen the ad for the - as above so below - movie. Archaeologists discover the gates of hell in the catacombs under Paris. Also strange.