Darren Wilson's Side of the Story

[barbara]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

He got shot for that.

Then, when he ran away wounded and was no longer a threat to Wilson
Wilson choose to pursue him and finish him off.

Too bad he didn't keep running. Instead, he turned around to face the officer and became a threat to the officer.

[barbara]

By the way, I'm not knowledgable about the extensive training a law enforcement officer receives, but common sense tell me that if someone goes for an officer's weapon after assaulting him... The officer would not be doing his job if he didn't pursue the person. Are officers just supposed to let themselves get punched in the face and give up their weapons?

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by barbara

By the way, I'm not knowledgable about the extensive training a law enforcement officer receives, but common sense tell me that if someone goes for an officer's weapon after assaulting him... The officer would not be doing his job if he didn't pursue the person. Are officers just supposed to let themselves get punched in the face and give up their weapons?

From all I've read so far, the only witness to the punching and wrestling for Wilson's Sig Sauer.40 was Wilson himself.

[piece-itpete]

Are there fingerprints on the gun?

Pete

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by barbara

Enough excuses. Brown assaulted a police officer and tried to take the officer's weapon from him. That is just wrong.

Did he try to take the weapon? We have just one person's word for that, and I think that person tells stories some.

But why do you say we make excuses? Who says Brown should be excused for anything that he actually did? He certainly stole cigars, and apparently punched officer Wilson. I do not excuse him for these things.

But if anyone does anything wrong, does that make it OK for the police to shoot them down in the street? Or should we have more particular rules that must be met, before we excuse that?

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Are there fingerprints on the gun?

Pete

Apparently the Cops didn't think checking it for prints was necessary.

http://themoderatevoice.com/200658/a...much-bumbling/

For example, Wilson was allowed to return unescorted to the station where he “placed his recently fired pistol into an evidence bag himself.” That would have been a violation of the rules of the St. Louis County Police Department but no one in the DA’s office clarified what the rules were in Ferguson.

In addition, no one from the Ferguson police department dusted the gun for prints. Or photographed his hands before he cleaned up.

The grand jury heard a Ferguson investigator claim that because Wilson “never lost control of his gun” there was no need to dust it for prints.

Yet Wilson had claimed that he “was not in control of the gun” (page 7, pdf). Then later he claimed that Brown’s “fingers were over in between from the hammer and the slide preventing it from firing (page 8).”

[barbara]

Originally Posted by bobabode

From all I've read so far, the only witness to the punching and wrestling for Wilson's Sig Sauer.40 was Wilson himself.

There are other eye witnesses (credible or not, hard to tell) that say Brown assaulted the officer while the officer was in the car.

But, more credible is the forensic evidence. From what I've heard, the grand jury relied on forensic evidence more than eye witnesses. And, the forensic evidence indicates that Brown was shot in the vehicle at extremely close range.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Apparently the Cops didn't think checking it for prints was necessary.

http://themoderatevoice.com/200658/a...much-bumbling/

I say again that people should be fired for lax investigation and forensic evidence collection in this case.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by barbara

There are other eye witnesses (credible or not, hard to tell) that say Brown assaulted the officer while the officer was in the car.

But, more credible is the forensic evidence. From what I've heard, the grand jury relied on forensic evidence more than eye witnesses. And, the forensic evidence indicates that Brown was shot in the vehicle at extremely close range.

I haven't read all of the media dump, as some folks are calling it, but I did read all of Wilson's Grand Jury testimony and Wilson's testimony was that his first shot went through the door shattering the window. His second shot hit Brown's hand but it wasn't real clear that Brown's hand was in the car at the time.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by barbara

There are other eye witnesses (credible or not, hard to tell) that say Brown assaulted the officer while the officer was in the car.

But, more credible is the forensic evidence. From what I've heard, the grand jury relied on forensic evidence more than eye witnesses. And, the forensic evidence indicates that Brown was shot in the vehicle at extremely close range.

No one disputes that. But it does not prove that Brown was grappling for the gun. And this is all beside the real point anyway.

Even if Brown did grapple for the gun, that makes the shots while Wilson was in the car justified, as they almost certainly would have been just by the assault through the window, without any grab for the gun coming into it. But that is all they justify.

The matter of shooting and killing Brown after he flees is another matter. That matter turns on what Brown and Wilson did while Brown fled and after he stopped. I would like these things to have been explored in open court, with a defense attorney defending, and a prosecutor prosecuting.