He’s not the only witness who said that Wilson fired shots at Brown’s back. We now know that he wasn’t hit from behind, but the prosecution is under no obligation to tell the grand jury that, or to bring it up at all.
It is a bit of a stretch to say witnesses that variously claim that Brown was moving away from Wilson, moving slowly toward Wilson and not moving toward Wilson all have ‘basically the same story’.
Actually, Brown doesn’t have a version of events. He dead.
Which witnesses? What exactly did they say? From what I’ve read, your characterization here doesn’t jive.
Dorian Johnson did not say that Wilson fired shots **at **his back; he said
[list=a][li]That the first shot fired hit Brown in the right side and that blood could be seen pooling on the right of Brown’s body[/li][li]That the second shot Wilson fired hit Brown in the back (cite).[/li][li]That Brown did not reach for Wilson’s weapon (cite) and makes no mention of any wounds to Brown’s hand incurred during a struggle for Wilson’s gun.[/list]We know with reasonable certainty that the first shots fired were inside the car, and hit Brown in the hand, and that the second shot did not hit Brown in the back. [/li]
[QUOTE=steronz]
Which witnesses?
[/QUOTE]
The ones you cited.
You need to actually read your own cites.
Regards,
Shodan
I know that. He was either mistaken or is lying. However, a more impartial witness also thought that Brown may have been hit in the back. You’re certainly free to think that Dorian Johnson is lying about Brown having been hit in the back, but I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion.
[quote=“Shodan, post:2565, topic:695354”]
he said
[li]That the first shot fired hit Brown in the right side and that blood could be seen pooling on the right of Brown’s body[/li][/quote]
Brown had several bullet wounds in the right hand, arm, and chest. Dorian’s statement here is entirely possible. All we know is that the wound to his hand happened at very close range. That same bullet may have caused one of the wounds higher up on his arm or chest, or it could have been a second shot. I think you’re assuming that he was shot once in the hand from within the car and that all of the other gunshot wounds happened later, but that’s not based on fact AFAIK.
[quote=“Shodan, post:2565, topic:695354”]
[li]That the second shot Wilson fired hit Brown in the back (cite).[/li][/quote]
Addressed above.
He knew Brown was hit by a bullet because he saw blood. He may not have seen the hand wound. He may not have seen Brown reach for the gun because it might not have happened. He may not have seen a struggle for the gun because it might not have happened. All we can say is that Brown’s hand was close to the gun when he was shot. That tells us nothing about whatever reason his hand might have been there.
Different witnesses characterized Brown’s movement in different ways. Some said he was standing still until he started getting shot, then he stumbled forward. Some said he took a step or two forward and then started moving faster once he was shot, but they didn’t know if that was intentional or if he was just falling. Nobody says he was moving backwards, AFAIK, which kidchameleon claims. I could be wrong on that, but I haven’t seen it. But that’s not the point. Brown runs, Brown stops, Brown turns, Brown is killed. Same *basic *story. Some details differ (he had his hands up, out to the side, or under his belly), but my only point here was that if a grand jury hears that same basic story from 8 witnesses, they’re not going to throw out the whole case just because of some minor differences like that.
Imagine the cop, with holstered pistol on his right hip, about…what? four feet from the car window? How does Brown lean into the car window and snatch the gun from the holster before the cop can move his hand a foot or so and retrieve it first? Mad ninja skills?
Alternatively, Brown sees the cop pull his gun from the holster and start to bring it to bear on him. So, he outruns a 9mm slug? Or does he reach for the gun as its is coming up to the shooting position, hoping to, like, not get shot! Failing that, then he runs! Gun goes off, he panics, he runs…
To reach a holstered gun, Brown pretty much has to jam his upper body into car window, and still couldn’t get to it before the cop does unless the cop is in a coma!
And is therefore a witness whose testimony is suspect.
And that witness is also unreliable, since Brown was not hit in the back.
No, it isn’t. Johnson claimed that the first shot hit Brown in the right side, Brown started running, and the second hit him in the back. He claimed Brown turned and surrendered, and Wilson continued firing. The wound to Brown’s hand happened at close range, not thirty feet away, and therefore could not have occurred anywhere except inside the car.
Correct, and therefore kidchameleon is correct in pointing out that you are stretching the truth in your claim that the accounts are basically the same.
Whether Brown was surrendering or attacking is very much a part of the basic story, and it is misleading indeed to pretend that this fact is not in dispute. It is. And the fact that witnesses who claim Brown was surrendering also make clearly disproven claims about what they saw casts the whole of their testimony into doubt.
I expect that Wilson will not be indicted, and the assholes in Ferguson will attempt to riot. Let’s hope the police are ready to put down the riot if and when they try. Mob rule is a bad thing, especially when it is a mob of such idiots.
Regards,
Shodan
:rolleyes:
The hand is a very mobile part of the body, and Brown was a tall man. Could a bullet have traveled up through his thumb and into his upper arm or shoulder? Do we know that it didn’t? Could there have been a second shot from inside the car that hit him in the upper arm or shoulder? Like I said, you’re making an assumption, that A) he was shot in the hand in the car, and B) every other bullet wound happened at some range in the later barrage of bullets.
Which witnesses say that Brown was charging officer Wilson? Aside from Wilson himself, of course.
You seem to be arguing for Wilson’s innocence, when I’m simply arguing that the prosecutor has more than enough consistent eyewitness testimony for a grand jury indictment. You seem to be saying that if you listened to the full testimony of the 8 witnesses I’ve mentioned, and did not here Wilson’s own story or claim of self defense, you would throw out all of their testimony and choose not to indict because of a few details that didn’t match. I’m sorry, but that’s ridiculous. When you get that many people all agreeing that Brown ran, turned, and was shot dead without provocation, I’m sorry, but that shit needs to go to trial. I know eyewitness testimony has its problems, but that’s just too much.
Brilliant refutation there.
The shot in the hand was at close range; the other wounds to the arm were not.
Dorian Johnson said that the second shot was outside the car, and hit Brown in the back.
That’s not an assumption; it’s what the evidence of autopsy shows.
A woman who would only give her first name told The LA Times that Brown rushed at Wilson after the first shot.
I don’t know if she testified before the grand jury or not, nor do you.
You have already cited a witness saying that Brown was approaching Wilson, albeit slowly. Dorian Johnson said Brown was running away when he was shot, but we know that not to be the case.
I expect the actual grand jury, who actually did hear the testimony and examine the evidence, will disagree.
Regards,
Shodan
You also have the question of whether the witnesses say the same thing to the police or the jury as they did to the media. They’re under no obligation to be accurate or truthful to the media, and it’s far from uncommon for people’s stories to change.
So someone lying about what happened in a case where a young man, a human being, has died gets a rolleyes from you.
I hope you’re not an American because if people like you live here then we are truly fucked as a nation.
In today’s shocking news, the pathologist extensively quoted by the Post-Dispatch says that her statements were taken out of context. She noted that much of the evidence is consistent with Wilson’s report but that they are also consistent with other scenarios.
not following the story or this discussion closely.
this autopsy is the first autopsy i believe.
the first autopsy results released were from the second autopsy which was done after he was embalmed.
Then you should be concerned that Wilson shot at an innocent man while his back was turned.
From Melinek, as reported by DailKos (The Official Michael Brown Autopsy Report Doesn't Say What the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Says It Does)
Innocent of what?
(post shortened)
Innocent of what, specifically? Innocent of robbing a store? Innocent of attacking the store clerk? Innocent of attacking a police officer? Innocent of trying to take the officers firearm?
Well, I suppose there’s no hard proof that he was the Zodiac killer.
So he was innocent of that.
And the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby.
Of a crime, you fucking idiot. Presumption of innocence.