Darren Wilson's Side of the Story

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I never said he should be totally disregarded. From the beginning, I've said that, due to his complicity in the events of that day, his statements should treated skeptically and challenged. What's so racist about that?

Finally a chink in your carefully crafted armor (constant repetition of the grand jury findings and Utah legal expert/professor).

It seems to me that the grand jury listened to Wilson's story (coached by the DA's) and then ignored some of the eye witnesses who could refute his account of the events. A very careful witness selection process it seems and the DA is held harmless.

Yet Wilson was complicit in the Brown killing. So why would people trust Wilson anymore than they do Johnson, especially the people of Ferguson? I for one don't. One needs to accept the fact that there are vested interests in the PD and DA's office to find Wilson innocent. This is really why this won't go away. You can quote the grand jury verdict till you are blue in the face and it is not going to change some people's mind about who committed the worse of the two crimes.

I no longer have a strong opinion on Brown's guilt or Wilson's innocence, but do have major discomfort about how the case was dealt with, both during the investigation and subsequent grand jury testimony. This was a sham from the get go.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Boreas

There's no evidence, even from Wilson, that Dorian Johnson was in any way "complicit" in the fatal interaction between Wilson and Brown. As to the robbery, there's no evidence of Johnson's complicity there either. All that can be said is that he accompanied Brown into the store and was still present when Brown stole the cigarillos.

I suppose he should have attempted a citizen's arrest, right?

John

Complicity - An individual is complicit in a crime if he is aware of its occurrence and has the ability to report the crime, but fails to do so.

Accomplice - An accomplice is a person who helps another person commit a crime, Accomplice liability involves primary actors who actually participate in the commission of the crime...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complicity

I didn't call him an accomplice, I called him complicit (in a felonious strong-arm robbery). Correctly, might I add.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Complicity - An individual is complicit in a crime if he is aware of its occurrence and has the ability to report the crime, but fails to do so.

Technically true but do you suppose that the crime was likely to go unreported unless Johnson did the reporting? There were two store employees, a man and a woman, visible in the surveillance video and at least one patron.

As it happens, the police assert that the crime was indeed reported by a patron but that Wilson didn't/did know about it.

An interesting little tidbit in the surveillance video: Brown takes a total of two packs of cigarillos from the sales counter. Before grabbing the second, Brown hands the first one to Johnson.

You can see Johnson looking at, looking away from and then looking at the cigarillos again in classic fashion. Then, as the two are leaving the store, Johnson puts the pack he was holding back on the counter.

By the time Brown turns to threaten and to push the store manager, Johnson's already outside.

From all we know about Johnson, he seems like an okay kid. He just ended up in two "uncomfortable" situations within a very short space of time. There is nothing, other than a jaundiced view of his mere presence, to suggest that he lacks any credibility at all.

Wilson, on the other hand............

John

[sheltiedave]

I don't see racism, but I do see a concerted effort on your part to view all BLACK witnesses in skeptical fashion, yet all the WHITE witnesses besides the two who fall to Brown's side, you have said nary a cross word. I would call this prejudicial, biased, and if it were substantiated, I would go to bigoted.

And you have zero concern about the WHITE district attorneys who knowingly inserted black and white witnesses into the testimony who had ZERO chance of witnessing any of the events. Yet you extolled the testimony of the WHITE lady who committed a misdemeanor crime of filing a false police report. It fit the narrative Wilson testified too, that his group of lawyers hammered into him, with the illegally and deliberately provided physical evidence from the scene.

It is a very slippery slope when you allow perjury, crimes, and prosecutorial misconduct into a legal proceeding that is supposed to be directed at finding truth that may lead to justice.

We aren't talking about memory slips that lead to changing a story, or small details being fudged. We are talking about a witness who wasn't within ten miles of Canfield, another two witnesses who never even saw the street Brown was shot and fought on, another witness who can't read a stop sign from 50 feet away who was recounting what he saw 250 feet away, etc.

But in the end, we have those who don't want to know anything about what happened, and those who are unhappy with either what went down, or unhappy with the morass that is the aftermath.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Technically true but do you suppose that the crime was likely to go unreported unless Johnson did the reporting? There were two store employees, a man and a woman, visible in the surveillance video and at least one patron....

The kid was complicit in a (felonious) strong arm robbery and chose to remain with the perp as they later moseyed down the street. Though he may have been surprised by Brown's behavior in the store, he seemingly wasn't bothered enough to get away from Brown afterwards. Regardless, he was indeed complicit in the crime.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The kid was complicit in a (felonious) strong arm robbery and chose to remain with the perp as they later moseyed down the street. Though he may have been surprised by Brown's behavior in the store, he seemingly wasn't bothered enough to get away from Brown afterwards. Regardless, he was indeed complicit in the crime.

I stand by my earlier post. There's no legitimate reason not to credit his testimony.

LATE EDIT

"Anyone willing to give credence to Anonymous or Dorian Johnson has thereby shattered their own credibility..."

Actually, I think that the reverse is true. Anyone unwilling to give his testimony credence is doing so out of prejudice (in the general sense of the word). It would be akin to dismissing out of hand testimony from Brown himself, had he survived, or from Wilson himself. A willingness to assess testimony on its own merits, irrespective of its source, is central to our entire adversarial system of justice.

John

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

This was a sham from the get go.

It sure was.

I remember when McCullough came out to announce the Grand Jury "findings".

Just about everything he said was intended to demonize Michael Brown.

It was obvious to me that that had been his agenda all along.

[sheltiedave]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I stand by my earlier post. There's no legitimate reason not to credit his testimony.

LATE EDIT

"Anyone willing to give credence to Anonymous or Dorian Johnson has thereby shattered their own credibility..."

Actually, I think that the reverse is true. Anyone unwilling to give his testimony credence is doing so out of prejudice (in the general sense of the word). It would be akin to dismissing out of hand testimony from Brown himself, had he survived, or from Wilson himself. A willingness to assess testimony on its own merits, irrespective of its source, is central to our entire adversarial system of justice.

John

And a willingness to apply judicial prejudice to present credible testimony before a grand jury is the mark of a competent and diligent prosecutor. This means "witnesses" who knowingly admit that they completely fabricated their sworn testimony, or during the course of their interviews prior to the grand jury reveal such, should not be given the chance to present at the grand jury.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The kid was complicit in a (felonious) strong arm robbery and chose to remain with the perp as they later moseyed down the street. Though he may have been surprised by Brown's behavior in the store, he seemingly wasn't bothered enough to get away from Brown afterwards. Regardless, he was indeed complicit in the crime.

You call this complicit?

Originally Posted by Boreas

An interesting little tidbit in the surveillance video: Brown takes a total of two packs of cigarillos from the sales counter. Before grabbing the second, Brown hands the first one to Johnson.

You can see Johnson looking at, looking away from and then looking at the cigarillos again in classic fashion. Then, as the two are leaving the store, Johnson puts the pack he was holding back on the counter.

By the time Brown turns to threaten and to push the store manager, Johnson's already outside............

That's ridiculous.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Boreas

An interesting little tidbit in the surveillance video: Brown takes a total of two packs of cigarillos from the sales counter. Before grabbing the second, Brown hands the first one to Johnson.

You can see Johnson looking at, looking away from and then looking at the cigarillos again in classic fashion. Then, as the two are leaving the store, Johnson puts the pack he was holding back on the counter.

By the time Brown turns to threaten and to push the store manager, Johnson's already outside.

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

That's ridiculous.

What's ridiculous?

John