New Witness to Michael Brown Shooting

[Beco]

I think we understand that in your case. But I want to remind you that 'eye witness's' turn out to be among the most unreliable of 'fact' generators. So there is that. The actual forensics will tell a much better story.

The whole discovery process is going to take time and what it ends up revealing is anyone's guess.

Ishmael

But in the meantime, lets riot!

 

[toubab]

Out of curiousity what do you see about the witness that leads you to believe they are highly credible?

In a high profile case witnesses come out of the woodwork, many of whom, at the end of the day, are never allowed to testify because of credibility problems, once all of the witnesses are interviewed, the particulars of the story don't match. When the media saturates a case it is very easy for person, perhaps even a well meaning person, to provide details that ultimately align perfectly - not with the crime, but with the media stories about the crime.

Once a witness is lawyered up you can be assured what you will get is a polished and practiced media narrative, of little probative value. With these types of witnesses they can establish value by providing details that were not in the media narrative and that correspond directly to the events. I'd never judge a witnesses credibility based on an interview on cable TV. Deceptive witnesses will miss key details (because they weren't there or didn't see).

The forensics will provide additional information in the investigation, which will be fed into the mix. Most significantly will be entrance and exit points, as well as the trajectory of the bullet through the skin, underlying muscles, and soft tissues. This will give you a quite accurate picture of body position at the time of contact. If he had his hands up and he was shot in the chest, it will be apparent. Of course, in a high profile case, expect them to be challenged every inch of the way.

For your reading pleasure:

Missouri Revised Statutes 563.046

Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest.

563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.

2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.

3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

A police officer may shoot a fleeing felon if the officer reasonably believes the suspect may otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury. Here is the Missouri Statute on resisting arrest:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5750000150.HTM

In this case, a reasonable person would believe that, if the cops narrative is true, the suspect had committed two felonies in the presence of the officer (assault on a police officer and resisting arrest), and we know had minutes before committed a third felony (strong arm robbery). The initial witness that reported the "hands in the air and surrendering" narrative was the suspects criminal accomplice in the strong arm robbery, so he is hardly an impartial or credible witness at this point. Subsequent witness narratives should be carefully evaluated.

I'd predict at this point, it is all going to hinge on the forensics. If the forensics support a hands raised position and a frontal shot(s), then the cop will be indicted by the grand jury and go to trial. The jury case will hinge on what the cop thought and what led him to fire the final shots. At this point, just knowing the law and what little things we do know now - the grand jury is not going to even indict.

I am sure there is a lot of information yet to come and that will push the narrative one way or another. A tragedy all the way around, any way you look at it. One young life ended and countless others forever altered.

I've already explained why I find Tiffany Mitchell to be a credible witness. I suggest you watch this interview and form your own opinion as to her credibility:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bs2uZN8GAw

As for forensics, my understanding is the fatal shot may have been to the head, and if that's the case that shot wouldn't provide evidence of hand raising. It could provide other evidence, of course, and other possible shots could provide evidence of hand raising, etc. We shall see.

 

[Paul_Chance]

I've already explained why I find Tiffany Mitchell to be a credible witness. I suggest you watch this interview and form your own opinion as to her credibility:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bs2uZN8GAw

As for forensics, my understanding is the fatal shot may have been to the head, and if that's the case that shot wouldn't provide evidence of hand raising. It could provide other evidence, of course, and other possible shots could provide evidence of hand raising, etc. We shall see.

I've seen the media interview. Just based on years of experience as well, I'd never consider a media interview a real interview - they're coached, they're rehearsed, and they're controlled. I also don't know anyone with any experience in interviewing (except you now), who would consider a media interview as worth anything in the end. Eventually she'll sit for a real interview - or she won't. Time reveals all things.

 

[toubab]

I've seen the media interview. Just based on years of experience as well, I'd never consider a media interview a real interview - they're coached, they're rehearsed, and they're controlled. I also don't know anyone with any experience in interviewing (except you now), who would consider a media interview as worth anything in the end. Eventually she'll sit for a real interview - or she won't. Time reveals all things.

She gave a statement to the police right away, as indicated in the Lemon interview. She was already on record prior to this interview. And Lemon did a far better job in this interview than most news people would. He did no coaching, and asked no leading questions.

You and I simply disagree. I find the witness credible.

 

[Dream59]

She gave a statement to the police right away, as indicated in the Lemon interview. She was already on record prior to this interview. And Lemon did a far better job in this interview than most news people would. He did no coaching, and asked no leading questions.

You and I simply disagree. I find the witness credible.

Toubab you have no idea whether the witness was coached or the story buffed, before the cameras started rolling. Nor do you have any idea how the tape was edited. Believe what you wish, but to watch a TV interview and say there was no coaching leads me to believe you could not investigate a 3 year old raiding the cookie jar.

 

[toubab]

Toubab you have no idea whether the witness was coached or the story buffed, before the cameras started rolling. Nor do you have any idea how the tape was edited. Believe what you wish, but to watch a TV interview and say there was no coaching leads me to believe you could not investigate a 3 year old raiding the cookie jar.

Aside from the very important fact the witness had already given a statement to the police shortly after the shooting, and considerably prior to this interview, it should be obvious to a three year old the woman was not coached by Lemon, and also obvious to a three year old the tape was not edited. I find it very interesting some of you insist you don't find the witness credible. Makes me wonder why you don't, since none of you have given a single good reason why she is not, but you sure as hell do throw out a lot of speculation about coaching and tape editing, etc., with nothing to back it up.

 

[Skiddles2014]

Pig Fight!

 

[toubab]

It is absolutely moronic to think Tiffany Mitchell would go on national TV and change her story about what she saw because of coaching by Don Lemon, after giving a statement to the police as to what she saw. Absolutely moronic.

 

[eyer]

Is your wife screwing someone other than you, toubab?

 

[toubab]

Is your wife screwing someone other than you, toubab?

Not as far as I know, but only a fool would ask such a ridiculous question, and for no apparent reason.

 

[eyer]

Not as far as I know...

I see.

 

[about_average]

There was nothing illegal about shooting Brown in the back as he was fleeing.

David Klinger, an associate professor in the department of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri–St Louis and a former officer with the Los Angeles police department, said there are two permissible circumstances in which an officer can use lethal force.

1 - Constitutionally, a police officer can shoot a suspect who is threatening the life of the officer, a fellow officer or a member of the public, said Klinger, a use-of-force expert. This is known as the “defence of life” standard.
2 - An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I've seen the media interview. Just based on years of experience as well, I'd never consider a media interview a real interview - they're coached, they're rehearsed, and they're controlled. I also don't know anyone with any experience in interviewing (except you now), who would consider a media interview as worth anything in the end. Eventually she'll sit for a real interview - or she won't. Time reveals all things.

I said that before.

One of the science channels has a show on perceptions, from the standard optical illusion to the physiology and psychology of the human brain. In one experiment they gathered a group of people and staged a purse/camera snatching. Some of the results included a wild variety of descriptions of the perp, victim and item stolen. The woman most confident of what she saw and the one who was most detail oriented, turned out to be one of the more wrong witnesses to the event; her mind filled in the details for her. Additionally, there were two plants whom each offered up one bit of false information which was adopted by several of the other witnesses upon hearing their testimony.

You have the press pursuing a story and breathlessly reporting their details, a community that wants to believe the story and is listening only to each other and the TV news (because as I said before, if you see it on TV, then it has to be true), and a self-feeding cycle of reinforcement that very well may be creating false memories based upon a narrative that got out well ahead of the facts.

Let us hope there is some other security or police surveillance tape out there to help get the story straight.

 

[about_average]

I am defending his right not to be convicted and lynched by the press which is purposely telling only one story.

Maybe because they only have one.
Apparently you think Wilson should make a statement to the press about what happened. You live in lala land.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I said they have only one story.

It is a template.

How power holds down the little man and abuses him. The cops had guns, the innocent Ute only had cigars, therefore under no circumstance could he be shot. None. Any thing the cop says is a lie. If they cannot get him criminally, they will put him in double jeopardy and get him on Federal Civil Rights charges. Social Justice will be done.

Whether or not I, or anyone else thinks there is a chance that the cop might have acted in self defense is irrelevant to what will happen here. He is a cop, a minority community is outraged, it has been blown up onto a national outrage, the Race Industry has its teeth into this case and if the cop is not convicted, then they will riot, destroy and shit in their own nests and then demand we pay to fix them, so stick a fork in the officer, he's done, his life is over and our innocent Ute is the one who managed to destroy two lives because he was larger than life and entitled to whatever he wanted, from cigars to kicking a cop's ass...,

Because after all, cops are ba-a-ad. Hmmkay?

 

[Ishmael]

I said they have only one story.

It is a template.

How power holds down the little man and abuses him. The cops had guns, the innocent Ute only had cigars, therefore under no circumstance could he be shot. None. Any thing the cop says is a lie. If they cannot get him criminally, they will put him in double jeopardy and get him on Federal Civil Rights charges. Social Justice will be done.

Whether or not I, or anyone else thinks there is a chance that the cop might have acted in self defense is irrelevant to what will happen here. He is a cop, a minority community is outraged, it has been blown up onto a national outrage, the Race Industry has its teeth into this case and if the cop is not convicted, then they will riot, destroy and shit in their own nests and then demand we pay to fix them, so stick a fork in the officer, he's done, his life is over and our innocent Ute is the one who managed to destroy two lives because he was larger than life and entitled to whatever he wanted, from cigars to kicking a cop's ass...,

Because after all, cops are ba-a-ad. Hmmkay?

As an interesting aside based on your emboldened comment above and other information posted in the relevant threads.

The community is 57% +/- black. Which is to say that the blacks represent a majority in that community. And this was a community shooting. Depending on the source you read there are only 3 or 6 black officers on that police force, a force of over 50 officers. There is only one black city councilman on a council of six. And the mayor is white as well.

In local elections only 12% of the electorate has turned out to vote. No one has asked the question as to whether the black vote has been suppressed, why is that? Could it be that the question hasn't been asked because the answer doesn't fit a template?

My point being is that there is no reason for the police force to be so majority white, no reason for the council to be majority white, and no reason for there to be a white mayor beyond voter apathy. No reason for the black majority to NOT have complete control of a community in which they represent the majority of the population. The fact that they don't is so astonishing that not even the press that has flooded the community to cover this sordid little passion play has been able to make sense of it.

The black community went from not giving a shit about a situation that they could have, and should have, had complete control to rioting over a situation over which they abdicated their community responsibility is mind boggling.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I think that is a good point.

Our community turns out 30+% for primaries where the Democrat and Libertarian ballots only list one candidate per office who is guaranteed 100% to lose...



The problem with out black community is that reasonable 'African-Americans' tend to vote Republican while the Democrats offer up the clowns and freak shows of that community as candidates.

 

[Ishmael]

I think that is a good point.

Our community turns out 30+% for primaries where the Democrat and Libertarian ballots only list one candidate per office who is guaranteed 100% to lose...



The problem with out black community is that reasonable 'African-Americans' tend to vote Republican while the Democrats offer up the clowns and freak shows of that community as candidates.

I don't know about your area but across the nation there are an overwhelmingly large number of communities that run non-partisan races for mayor, city council, etc. The candidates themselves may be registered as republican, or democrat, or other, but there is no such notation on the ballot. You can't just punch the 'R' or 'D' button and vote party lines, you have to actually choose a candidate by name. Perhaps that freedom overwhelms some.

Ishmael

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

As an interesting aside based on your emboldened comment above and other information posted in the relevant threads.

The community is 57% +/- black. Which is to say that the blacks represent a majority in that community. And this was a community shooting. Depending on the source you read there are only 3 or 6 black officers on that police force, a force of over 50 officers. There is only one black city councilman on a council of six. And the mayor is white as well.

In local elections only 12% of the electorate has turned out to vote. No one has asked the question as to whether the black vote has been suppressed, why is that? Could it be that the question hasn't been asked because the answer doesn't fit a template?

My point being is that there is no reason for the police force to be so majority white, no reason for the council to be majority white, and no reason for there to be a white mayor beyond voter apathy. No reason for the black majority to NOT have complete control of a community in which they represent the majority of the population. The fact that they don't is so astonishing that not even the press that has flooded the community to cover this sordid little passion play has been able to make sense of it.

The black community went from not giving a shit about a situation that they could have, and should have, had complete control to rioting over a situation over which they abdicated their community responsibility is mind boggling.

Ishmael

Ferguson reminds me of a small town close to me. Its a speed trap and ruled by a clicque of old bastards like me. The rest are blacks, welfare moms, and transients. Except for the old guys the place is a revolving door. And that's what the NYTimes says Ferguson is.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I don't know about your area but across the nation there are an overwhelmingly large number of communities that run non-partisan races for mayor, city council, etc. The candidates themselves may be registered as republican, or democrat, or other, but there is no such notation on the ballot. You can't just punch the 'R' or 'D' button and vote party lines, you have to actually choose a candidate by name. Perhaps that freedom overwhelms some.

Ishmael

Not here.

In primaries you ask for a party ballot and in generals, there is a (R/D/L/C) behind the candidate name.

That being said, most contests here are foregone conclusions unless it's for a state-wide office like Governor or US Senator. The winner is the Republican who raises the most money. Elections are virtually over the day after the primary.

 

[Ishmael]

Ferguson reminds me of a small town close to me. Its a speed trap and ruled by a clicque of old bastards like me. The rest are blacks, welfare moms, and transients. Except for the old guys the place is a revolving door. And that's what the NYTimes says Ferguson is.

I read that as well and truly struggle with that explanation. Ferguson is NOT some rural backwater.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Ferguson reminds me of a small town close to me. Its a speed trap and ruled by a clicque of old bastards like me. The rest are blacks, welfare moms, and transients. Except for the old guys the place is a revolving door. And that's what the NYTimes says Ferguson is.

The honesty is refreshing...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I read that as well and truly struggle with that explanation. Ferguson is NOT some rural backwater.

Ishmael

Apparently it is a suburban backwater...

 

[Ishmael]

Not here.

In primaries you ask for a party ballot and in generals, there is a (R/D/L/C) behind the candidate name.

That being said, most contests here are foregone conclusions unless it's for a state-wide office like Governor or US Senator. The winner is the Republican who raises the most money. Elections are virtually over the day after the primary.

As long as the people are satisfied with that system, that's how it will remain.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

As long as the people are satisfied with that system, that's how it will remain.

Ishmael

Yeah, this place is the exemplar of good ol' boy politics.

Most of these families have been here since they spoke French...