To the surprise of no one, we are now being eased into accepting that murdering Michael Brown was ok, a sort of homicidal version of both sides do it:
A stream of eyewitnesses has been testifying in secret before a grand jury considering whether to indict police officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown near the Canfield Green apartments in Ferguson.
One Canfield resident — who said he saw the killing of Brown from start to finish and talked to the grand jury recently — has given the Post-Dispatch an account with some key differences from previous public statements from other witnesses.
Among the recollections of the witness, who agreed to an interview on the condition that his name not be used, were:
• After an initial scuffle in the car, the officer did not fire until Brown turned back toward him.
• Brown put his arms out to his sides but never raised his hands high.
• Brown staggered toward Wilson despite commands to stop.
• The two were about 20 to 25 feet apart when the last shots were fired.
He would not detail what he had told the grand jury but said the members seemed fair and asked a lot of questions.
The St. Louis Dispatch, the rag that spent weeks hounding Michael Brown’s juvenile record (in conjunction with Charles Johnson, twitter “activist” when he isn’t suspended and Breitbartesque truth seeker, most recently seen threatening to dox children who may have been exposed to Ebola) while not doing a damned thing to look into the Darren Wilson’s checkered past as a LEO (that had to be done by the Washington Post because the Dispatch apparently didn’t have the resources to look in their backyard), titles this story about the new eyewitness with a radically different account than the other seven witnesses as “Witness adds new perspective to Ferguson shooting.”
With McCulloch’s cynical strategy and this new excuse, get ready for no charges and lots of subsequent protests. My bad, there will be blah people involved. These won’t be called protests, they’ll be framed as riots, and more than likely, as in Ferguson earlier this year, the ones behind most of the violence and aggression will be dressed head to toe in riot gear.
Raise your hand if you are remotely surprised.
JPL
I hate Elizabelle for mentioning the debate in Iowa. I had no idea how annoying Joni Ernst is.
OzarkHillbilly
John, for the record, we here in St Lou and eastern MO call it the “St Louis Post Disgrace“. Jus’ so’s you know.
YellowJournalism
Hands down here, unfortunately.
Bobby B.
If you want to know how our Brave Men In Blue feel about Ferguson, check out the PoliceOne blog. Holy crap on a cracker.
Corner Stone
I thought we were supposed to see these race riots by the 15th of Oct?
TooManyJens
On the other hand, later in the story:
If that witness is Wilson’s best hope, and even he’s calling it murder… well, in a just world, Wilson would be in a hell of a lot of trouble.
Violet
Question about Grand Juries: I had jury duty today and the judge explained what indictment by grand jury means and then pretty much begged people to sign up to be a Grand Juror. Seriously. The judge was handing out sign up sheets or applications or whatever they were. The judge even identified people who had put “retired” under their occupation on the jury summons questionnaire and specifically gave them this sign up sheet because they “had time.” The judge did say that it’s best if grand juries are a mix of genders and races and ages because that reflects our community.
I always though grand juries were chosen from a pool like regular juries but I guess not. Or maybe this “sign up to be a grand juror” thing is only where I live and it’s different in other places. Anyone know?
Elizabelle
@JPL:
Why thank you! She’s a skilled debater, although her policies are awful. Although, fulsome praise of birth control. How refreshing.
Smart people in Iowa: you cannot stay home.
JPL
Braley sounds pretty good.
Mnemosyne
I think that this is one part is where movies and TV have misled all of us:
People don’t get blown backwards by handgun fire like you see in action movies. It’s just as probable that they’ll stumble forward, and they don’t have any control over it.
Elizabelle
@JPL:
And Scott Walker up tomorrow night at 8. Ack!
Mnemosyne
@Violet:
Depending on your state, it might not be a bad idea for you to sign up for a grand jury. My boss was on one and, yes, she had to be there for 6 months, but it was 1 day a week on a regular schedule and after that, she wouldn’t get a jury summons for something like 5 years. But I don’t know if your state has the same kind of “no other jury duty” deal that we have in California.
jl
I don’t know enough to evaluate the credibility of this witness, but not sure how it fits into ‘both sides do it’ in the sense that, no info I see about Brown shooting police with poor excuse.
I can see how the testimony might fit into ‘weak sauce’ category. IIRC Brown was probably hit at least once before the fatal shot, which just might have something to do with him holding his hands ‘out’ instead of ‘up’ (what is the formal criterion for ‘out’ versus ‘up’ anyway?).
And call me crazy, but a shot that winged Brown might have something to do with him staggering around in an unacceptably threatening manner.
But if any and all excuses will do, I guess fine testimony. We can see how it stands up to scrutiny.
Any word on what kind of police policy results in the officer trying to drag Brown into the patrol car through an open window? Some kind of folksy ‘get-to-know-you’ community policing thing?
shortstop
I’d like to be on THAT fucking grand jury. No way I’d have made it through voir dire, though.
Drunken hausfrau
Fuck all this! Seriously.
JPL
@Elizabelle: I’m not sure I can watch. This debate is interesting because I can’t figure out while she is ahead. She won’t answer a question.
Violet
@shortstop: I got on a jury panel today and went through voir dire. Left them with the distinct impression that I’m skeptical of law enforcement. Shockingly they didn’t pick me to be on the jury.
shortstop
@jl:
Perhaps he grabbed Brown’s hand and tried to force it toward his own gun. Sort of like when kids grasp another kid’s hand, make that kid slap himself, and ask smarmily, “Why are you beating on yourself?”
shortstop
@Violet: Well played. Normally I disapprove of smart people trying to escape jury duty, but your circumstances are highly extenuating.
ETA: In other news, I know a litigator who has two Jack Russells named Voir and Dire.
shortstop
@JPL: THAT’s why. I wonder how many Iowans actually know what she plans to do if elected.
lamh36
Since we are talking about St Louis PD…
St. Louis police officer under investigation following call to protester’s employer
dmbeaster
@Violet: your perception is correct and that is generally how it is done. Grand juries may sit for extended periods and hear multiple cases. Their primary function is as a discovery or investigative tool. Other procedures exist and are more commonly used to assess probable cause to proceed to trial, and uses judges rather than grand juries.
JPL
@shortstop: holy crap.. we have 600,000 Iowans on Social Security and any solutions that I come to cannot effect them.. although wtf…
I’m really not sure what she said.
Violet
@shortstop: I didn’t try to escape it. I could have lied and said I was a full time caregiver. I’m not. My parents are semi-independent but require specific help multiple times per week. So I went to jury duty because I believe it’s my responsibility and duty as a citizen.
But when they asked me some question like “have you had a negative experience with law enforcement?” I raised my hand and was honest. I have had a bad experience personally. And my view of law enforcement is colored by what I’ve seen over the last decade of increasing militarization and diminishing of respect for the people they are supposed to serve and protect. I got some additional questions and although I said I could set aside my experiences to be impartial, I’m certain they were left with an impression that I’m skeptical of law enforcement.
Corner Stone
@JPL: She is absolutely amazing.
BTW, these moderators are candy asses. They set up a tough premise and then let her completely fucking non-answer and/or lie.
Iowa deserves what they get if they elect her.
Violet
@Corner Stone: Unfortunately we’ll all pay. Fuck you Iowa if you elect Ernst.
JPL
@Corner Stone: It’s just so ridiculous. I really fear for our future if folks think she is capable of the seat.
Corner Stone
How is this individual even within 15% points with Braley?
JPL
@Corner Stone: I’m shocked and I still have negative feelings towards Elizabelle for mentioning this.
holy crap. .she is awful
rikyrah
7 witnesses say the same damn thing, but suddenly ONE witness says something different, and guess who will be called in front of the grand jury.
uh huh
uh huh
uh huh
aimai
@jl: What’s the excuse for the shot into the top of his head?
Keith G
@Violet: Your honesty might well mark you as being one of the few honest actors in that, or any trial process.
What worries me is what happens when good-spirited, every-day folks, who nonetheless have a jaundiced view of the police, get excluded from a jury pool. More and more we see police and prosecutors involved in shenanigans, so more and more we need people like you to be on juries.
Don’t be so honest next time.
They won’t be.
Violet
@Keith G: I did not want to be on the jury. I am the sole caregiver for both of my parents. I can’t really afford to be tied up on a jury for many days. I’m in charge of wound care for my dad.
I was kind of surprised by how few people said much of anything that seemed to bother the lawyers. Even the judge remarked that we were kind of all pretty low key or something. A whole lot of people had ties to law enforcement though. They asked that question. I’d say about half had close ties–close family members or good friends.
Omnes Omnibus
@rikyrah:
Well, the article Cole linked said that a “stream of eyewitnesses has been testifying in secret before a grand jury considering whether to indict police officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown near the Canfield Green apartments in Ferguson.” It isn’t as though only one witness is being called.
Also, the witness with the new perspective said this:
It doesn’t sound like the testimony was in Wilson’s favor. YMMV.
jl
@aimai:
” What’s the excuse for the shot into the top of his head? ”
Helpful hint on where his hands were supposed to be, rather than ‘out’? Just guessing here, I admit.
LT
“never raised his hands high.”
Fuck the fuck off. Leading nonsense.
smintheus
@TooManyJens: That’s the most interesting thing about the article. The witness offers a slightly different version of the same events as the other witnesses, and believes strongly that the officer murdered Brown while he was staggering to the ground, but the Dispatch turns his testimony inside out. It buries the witness’ condemnation of the killing, leads with fairly trivial differences in his account that it paints as misleadingly as possible. As quoted, the article’s bullet points suggest falsely that the witness believes Brown wasn’t shot while standing next to the car; that Brown didn’t submit when he turned around; that Brown ignored the cop’s orders; and that he advanced on the cop intentionally. Only much later do we learn that witness says that Brown was collapsing when the cop started to riddle him with bullets.
jl
@smintheus: thanks,didn’t have time to track all that down. Looks like Dispatch staff have a little attitude problem, or at least the editor for this story does.
Omnes Omnibus
@jl: Yeah, per the quotes from the witness in the article, it seems that he what he saw largely fits the big picture that the other witnesses who have spoken out have painted. The article and the headline are shitty; the witness’s testimony seem okay.
gian
Aren’t the proceedings supposed to be secret?
Who is leaking and why is he or she leaking?
Omnes Omnibus
@gian: Witnesses who testified in front of a grand jury are free to talk about the testimony they gave. The jurors and the prosecutors cannot leak.
Omnes Omnibus
@efgoldman: I suppose. However, a prosecutor who leaks can end up in trouble with the Bar.
ETA: In this case, the information is coming from a witness who has every right to speak. It is not a nefarious plot to undermine something or other.
dopey-o
Officer Darren Wilson will probably skate on this shooting. The Post Dispatch is the voice of the St. Louis establishment, and they are spinning to prepare the citizens for the inevitable whitewash. But I still have 2 questions:
Why did Officer Wilson fire 11 shots while standing in front of a large apartment complex full of families? And why such a barrage of gunfire against an unarmed teenager – who was known in the community, walking around in broad daylight?
The elephant in the room is the over-the-top reaction by Officer Wilson. Meth? Steroids? The number of shots fired in a few seconds tells me something is seriously wrong with this man. The outrageous support he gets from the Law Enforcement Community tells me he’s not the only one.
gian
@Omnes Omnibus:
Thanks. The article, at least when I skimmed it, seems to conflate public interviews with testimony with interviews of people who testified.
Article seemed more heat than light
MikeBoyScout
No Justice
No Peace
Corner Stone
@dopey-o:
He’s the real life Gone Girl.
Omnes Omnibus
@gian: It was a shitty article. The witness, as I and others have noted above, basically indicates that Wilson murdered Brown. Minor differences in detail are to be expected. Different vantage points. Shock. Quality of memory.
I still think it is quite probable that Wilson will be charged with 2d degree murder.
shortstop
@dopey-o: Maybe meth. Maybe steroids. But honestly, this seems like the behavior of a first-class asshole with uncontrolled rage problems who totally lost his shit at the black kid who had the gall to blow off his authoriteh. All the descriptions read like someone very unstable who was totally out of control with fury. Just the right sort of emotional makeup for LE.
metricpenny
@dopey-o:
Word.
Omnes Omnibus
@metricpenny: You are signing on to every thing that dopey-o said? Wow.
TG Chicago
@Omnes Omnibus:
IMHO, “shitty” is too strong, but they did put the emphasis in an awfully weird place. You’d think the “down outright murder” quote would have been a much bigger focus than it was.
In fact, I wonder if Cole read down that far. He says the report is about an “eyewitness with a radically different account than the other seven witnesses”. As you noted earlier, it’s really not that radically different.
Hmm, the more I think about it, the more I’m inclined to sign on to “shitty” with you. It seems the article was intended to make people think that this was a radically different account even though it’s not… if you read carefully. It seems to have fooled Cole. So an article that twists the facts to give readers a radically different impression of the account is pretty awful journalism.
Okay, yeah: shitty indeed.