#Ferguson: Darren Wilson’s prearrest silence may be admissible

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Good afternoon:

BettyKath asked the following question in the comments to yesterday’s post, Grand Jury should indict Darren Wilson because his claim of self-defense is contradicted by autopsy results and all eyewitnesses.

Didn’t the Supreme Court rule that maintaining silence before the Miranda warning, i.e. before being arrested, can be interpreted as a sign of guilt?

This is an excellent question regarding the admissibility of prearrest silence and my answer is the subject of today’s blog.

Yes, prearrest silence can be interpreted as evidence of guilt unless the suspect/defendant specifically invokes his fifth amendment right to remain silent. In Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 (1980), the defendant did not report the killing to the police until he turned himself in to police two weeks later. He told them that he stabbed the victim to death in self-defense. At trial, the prosecutor cross examined him regarding his failure to report the killing and to claim self-defense when it happened. He also commented on his silence in closing argument claiming that it was evidence of guilt.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) affirmed his conviction rejecting his argument that the comments on his prearrest silence violated his fifth amendment right to remain silent. The Court held that his silence was admissible because a defendant must expressly claim his right to remain silent for it to apply.

See also Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174 (2013).

Pursuant to Jenkins and Salinas, Wilson’s failure to fill out the incident report (i.e., his silence) will be admissible against him at trial unless he expressly refused to do so citing his fifth amendment right to remain silent.

Apparently, he did not do that because the cover sheet is filled out, but the section where his narrative report should be is blank.

If he orally invoked his right to remain silent when he turned in his blank incident report, his prearrest silence will not be admissible.

In any event, the prosecutor doesn’t have to comment on Wilson’s silence to get an indictment because, as I stated yesterday, he can obtain it by merely calling the eyewitnesses and presenting the autopsy report.

Although Wilson’s prearrest silence will not be admissible at trial, assuming he expressly invoked his right to remain silent, we also have to consider whether his oral statements to others that he shot in self-defense will be admissible.

No, they are not admissible because they constitute inadmissible self-serving hearsay.

That leaves Darren Wilson between a rock and a hard place.

He must testify in order to get his ‘bum-rush’ defense into evidence and a self-defense instruction. However, if he testifies, none of the eyewitnesses saw a ‘bum rush’ and if he tells a different story, he can be confronted with his ‘bum rush’ story.

Not an enviable situation to be in even with $225,000 in donations for his defense.

If you appreciate what we do, please make a donation.

Thank you,

Fred

172 Responses to #Ferguson: Darren Wilson’s prearrest silence may be admissible

  1. Trisha0620 says:

    Alleged audio of Mike Brown shooting on CNN Aug 25 2014

  2. so jaded says:

    THE FIX IS IN: gov nixon was quoted as saying “there is the possibility darren wilson will not be held accountable. He then when on to praise the prosecutor….darren wilson probably will not get indicted and he will pocket 2.5 million. It pays to be a racist cop.

    • Michelleo says:

      Welp, no one in power is going to do anything—even when “they” should or could. The success of the Civil Rights Era was due to people willing to be harmed or even killed. Looks like we are on that path again. The government, as usual, will do a lot of talking about nothing.

    • YQ says:

      Smh… That is awful! This an excused execution of an unarmed teenager! And we still have yet to hear Wilson’s story!

    • Two sides to a story says:

      I’m not so sure that they can get away with it this time. There may be some changes coming down the pike because clearly civil unrest and desire for gov’t to be held accountable is growing. Maybe we’ll break through to some transformation level. Missouri may be place where major reform in PD really takes hold. As a result of the Kelly Thomas murder here in S. Calif., we’ve got several civic PD in the area testing vest cameras, which can really change a lot if used properly.

      Of course that doesn’t change racism, but it keeps interactions honest. Just like installing cameras in public areas – people are better behaved and that counts for something. That can help habituate better behavior and civility becomes more the norm.

      I can hope and dream anyway.

  3. Two sides to a story says:

    How and why Officer Wilson messed up.

    http://anonhq.com/ferguson-and-the-use-of-the-force-matrix/

    • MKX says:

      The above is something the law and order people who may be siding with this cop ought to read.

      Wilson, like Zimmerman, made a mess out of the situation and is the sole cause of this tragedy.

      One thing missed. By having tunnel vision and chasing Brown, Wilson exposed his back to the other party that was with Brown.

      That is not how the police roll in Montgomery County, MD. If one sees something, he or she will observe till back up arrives.

      My theory is that Wilson was tooling down the street too fast and Brown and his friend were too slow to get out of his way. So the incident was more likely ignited by road rage. Why do I feel that Wilson might have been going too fast?

      His callous disregard for the life of those in that community is evidenced by his willingness to let out a hail of fire on a street with lots of people about. So why would he slow down when driving through.

      I had to warn people about Bentler. The PD, in unmarked cars, would blow by our stop sign doing over 60 mph. That’s what happens when a PD is not of or interested in the community they serve. The community just becomes animals they control to get a pay check. In all honesty, I was more afraid of the police than the criminals. Why? The criminals knew my name and I knew theirs. To the police, I was just another loser living in that shithole.

      My point is that Ferguson has problems that are systemic.

    • YQ says:

      Thanks for posting this. I have been bombarded by PSAs on the radio with info of how to “act appropriately” when dealing with cops…

      …However, there is limited info on what cops can and can’t do. Glad to see that there exists a template that cops should abide by.

  4. Malisha says:

    Taaffe is (a) all about Taaffe and (b) a racist lying thug.

    Other than that I have no problem with him.

    • so jaded says:

      Me too. I don’t know why some people think that the doj was looking into TM”s murder. They said that IMO to ward off violent protest.

      • Malisha says:

        They assigned some lacky in the DOJ department (I have forgotten her name already) to go through letters and field phone calls and say, “Thank you for your interest and concern; the investigation is still ongoing.” They will do nothing; they have done nothing; they never intended to do anything.

        • Malisha says:

          AND the statute of limitations for all the crimes they MIGHT be investigating (the cover-up crimes, the obstruction crimes, the police corruption crimes, etc.) either have run already or will have run by the time they finish their “investigation.”

  5. willisnewton says:

    *simply not credible

  6. Nef05 says:

    Off Topic: Regarding the comments where we were discussing the feds and their possible indictments regarding Zimmerman, Wilson, SPD and FPD; something struck me.

    It was only a few months ago (May 2014) that Taafe made his flip-flop. Now he claimed it was because the loss of his two sons and his brother (the prior month) made him want to clear his conscience and get right with God. Okay, that’s possible, maybe even likely. But, I wonder if that’s the only reason. Could it be the feds have found something on Taafe and now he’s a “cooperating witness”?

    I just rewatched his “apology”, and he was very specific about mentioning fogen’s “tendencies”. The feds need “tendencies” to prove racial aniumus. Taafe does not need “tendencies” to explain having evolved to a different conclusion. In fact, using “tendencies” makes him even more of an a-hole, since that’s just publicly admitting he knew the truth all along.

    I can just see Taafe trying to capitalize by stretching his long past 15 mins into just a few more. I can also see him trying to make himself seem like a righteous man, sincerely looking for forgiveness, rather than come off looking like a backstabbing, two-faced snitch. I don’t see him hesitating for two seconds, in throwing fogen under the bus, if the feds came to him and said “we know _____, but if you tell us what you know about fogen, we’ll talk to the DA and make it go away.”

    Just random thoughts going through my head on this Sunday night…

    • willisnewton says:

      Whatever Taafe says, its a lie. I’ve not seen his apology, but his lies were obvious and plain during the run up to the trial. Unless he’s willing to own up to being the tip-off person I don’t really care what he says. The man is sonly not credible, even if he were to somehow tell the truth now. Unless he’s got proof, his word is no good in court anyway.

  7. Trisha0620 says:


    another witness .

    • willisnewton says:

      Seems suspect. Bad reportage however. I mean what the hell are they even talking about with the Jesus stuff? This guy is either exaggerating what he saw or what he didn’t see, more likely the latter.

      Not to put too fine a point on it, but he also sounds WHITE.

      Why would someone wait this long to put out a story like this. I’d be curious to see what Brown;s companion Johnson thinks of this.

      • willisnewton says:

        Also the obvious problem with this account (besides the guy only wants to talk to fox news) is that he is saying the ofc he saw shoot Brown did so at a distance of 8 feet or so and then the teen staggered 25 feet forward. Did the ofc then step out of the way to let him pass?

        I don’t know and cannot guess the motive of this probable faker, but he’s making this stuff up for a reason. Perhaps he’s just trying to muddy the waters, who knows. He may think he is a well meaning person trying to help the Brown family but he’s a loose cannon that a credible news organization should have spotted easily, and weeded out before making him a public story in an atmosphere that is already shrouded in bullish*t.

    • YQ says:

      That seems huge.

      • willisnewton says:

        or, self aggrandizing to the man telling the story. Note how he makes himself the center of it, as thought the teen confided some dark prophecy to him just before leaving to do what, return and tell him another confession – is this guy his priest or what?

        I don’t buy it, not for a second, sorry.

        • YQ says:

          Well, i have to admit that it does feel a bit odd that this was published on 8/13 and no one caught wind of it. One would be inclined to think that this person should be included in the arsenal. CNN never got a hold of it and FOX doesnt mention it on their sites. IDK. There are the obvious tells that this could be a fraud but it is not entirely far-fetched to believe.

          But with him saying that MB stumbled 25ft towards the cop… that may be a red flag.

          A “mistaken stumble” claim could definitely be a beneficial narrative for Wilson. (My mind can’t grasp the word I’m trying to say) but it has to seem like even though he fired shots, he still operated within his boundaries – and unfortunately for the kid was just his luck that he turned around and stumbled forward BC it gave Wilson the misconception that MB was charging him. This presents a new narrarive for them to add on to the bum-rush claim, the “mistaken stumble” narrative. I hope that made sense.

        • MKX says:

          I agree. People will get details and come out of the woodwork to “help” the side they are on.

          I put the “friend” of the officer and this guy in that category.

    • JJ says:

      The guy was hard to understand. The other witnesses spoke in person, spoke clearly. Audio wasn’t good – not very professional production. So I can’t judge if the witness had any valid points to consider.

  8. JJ says:

    You know how the treehouse loves guns. Can the buy anything they want like on this page.
    http://www.slickguns.com/category/rifles?caliber=11

  9. MichelleO says:

    Well, ladies and gentlemen….I have found the devil’s lair on the Internet. I was on Twitter reading the timeline of Anonymous, when I followed a link directing citizens to a website to help identify what type of military artillery their states my have: http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/database-shows-what-military-equipment-your-local-police-department-has-been-stockpiling_08192014

    After you get through inputting your state information and taking a gander at what your police department is up to, I would encourage you to read through all of the comments posted. Talk about an education on how that side thinks and why…..! These are certainly not kiddies, either.

  10. J4TMinATL says:

    Where is fauxy???? I miss!

  11. Two sides to a story says:

    Trent’s back! He makes a good point about Darren Wilson never touching his head or face or witnesses mentioning same at the shooting scene.

  12. PhillyBoyRoy says:

    That was a joke earlier. Talk Left is wretched.

    • willisnewton says:

      agree. Sorry to be reminded of their existence. I had almost forgot about that site, and how twisted their “logic” was in defense of GZ. Truly a sad bunch of azzhats.

      Refused to ever explain how GZ could be in two places at the sam a time. It didn’t, so they ignored it.

  13. PhillyBoyRoy says:

    Cool, he will be posting at Talk Left soon.

  14. willisnewton says:

    Apologies if I derailed the legal discussion. It just hoped it might help to have some overall context, and I think the screen grabs might help people understand this was not a quick draw contest, but something where the teen ran for quite a ways, possibly as far and fast as he could physically sprint before realizing he needed to surrender. If you are 300 lbs and 6’4″ you may not be much good at running after 40 yards, regardless of what your mind wants you to do.

    Johnson seems to think his friend “Big” Mike Brown was hit while standing at the driver’s window. On a legal basis, unless he was given a command to do something other than run like hell, what are the legality of his actions in that moment he chose to flee? Is one under some unwritten compulsion to stand still while a cop shoots you after telling you to “get the eff outta the street/ onto the sidewalk”

    What are your legal rights if a cop chokes you in response to what you said to him? You have free speech but a cop gets free assault and battery?

    Let’s remove the question from the practical and go into a hypothetical. If i was walking down the path in a park and passed a cop who told me to get the eft off the grass, and I said, “it’s a free country, why don’t you go eft yourself?” What are my rights?

    I understand the SCOTUS recent confirmed that telling a cop to go eft himself is protected speech. Is this true?

    Then let’s say, the cop runs up to me and we bump into one another as I continue walking forward. He grabs me by the throat, but gives no specific command. What are my rights? Am I being detained, or assaulted? What if I break his choke hold by bashing his arm off of me? Am I now assaulting an officer, or legally defending myself from a psycho?

    And so on.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      I think SCOTUS simply confirmed that you can flip a cop off (give ’em the middle finger) as a form of free speech.

      I don’t think it means you can say anything you feel like saying – I’m guessing actual speech could be considered failure to obey an officer in the case of telling one to eff off if they tell you to get out of the street or off the grass or something. Maybe the professor can clue us in.

    • bettykath says:

      Info about fogen2

      The Ferguson police report about the incident says it began at 12:02 p.m. and that Wilson called it in at 12:43 p.m. The body remained in the street for four hours.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html?wpmk=MK0000203

      • Michelleo says:

        Yep. They go from one disgraced and disbanded police unit to another. No questions asked.

      • JJ says:

        One of the comments contained a link to YouTube video that showed how four witnesses painted a consistent picture of the MB incident.

      • willisnewton says:

        the washington post ran a correction to this story about Wilson calling it in. HE NEVER CALLED IT IN.

        Correction: This story has been updated to correct references to the time at which the shooting of Michael Brown was reported to police. Officer Darren Wilson did not call in the shooting at 12:43 p.m. as the story previously said; that is the time at which Ferguson police called on St. Louis County Police to investigate the incident. The story also previously cited the Ferguson police department as the source of information about the time of the shooting; in fact, the information comes from a St. Louis County Police report.

    • Michelleo says:

      I don’t think I would ever tell a person with a weapon to go eff themselves. You don’t have to answer a police officer every time they say something to you. If you disagree, just keep it moving.

    • As a practical matter, a person should say, “Yes, sir,” or “No,sir”

      Otherwise, the cop might assault you and charge you with assaulting him.

      Or, he might kill you.

      And don’t reach for your wallet or your purse or place your hand in your pocket without asking for permission to do so.

      Your life may depend on it, especially if you are black and he is white.

      • Bill Taylor says:

        your post shows my concern older LAW ABIDING citizens wont respond well the these situations where suddenly ILLEGAL orders are given by police when they are not breaking any law…..and many will get shot for merely asking a question what have i done?……..it is clear non IMMEDIATE compliance means deadly force in benign situations now.

        • Malisha says:

          Right. And that is not law enforcement when there is no law that says, “The police have absolute rights to control all behavior of citizens and their conduct may not be questioned.”

      • MichelleO says:

        I have met scary cops of different backgrounds, and don’t trust any of them. I don’t care what shade they come in, you gotta watch your back. Keep your common sense about you.

      • willisnewton says:

        no offense, but that doesn’t answer my question. I tend to think that Wilson, in starting his encounter with Brown by cursing set the tone for what followed. I also tend to think the boys told him where to get off, so to speak. But no matter what Mike Brown said or did, even if he issued a verbal death threat, the officer had no good or legal reason to do what he did in shooting the fleeing, then surrendering unarmed teen.

        • PhillyBoyRoy says:

          But the distances were wrong, and his friend was arrested once, and Mike Brown was angry about the altercation at the store.

      • yahtzeebutterfly says:

        Willis,

        I saw that you were looking for 3 cones that have no stripes. Here is one photo.

        Out of respect for Michael’s I am going to post it here so that the photo will not open up here. You will need to add
        http://i.ytimg.com/ in front of the link to see it.

        vi/0jl8sMf4sLU/0.jpg

        • yahtzeebutterfly says:

          Willis,

          This video at timestamp 1:18 also has 3 cones with no stripes. I will post the link without the youtube www part so that it will not appear as a video.

          watch?v=T33P5Ac02Z0

          You will need to add https://www.youtube.com/ in front of that.

          • willisnewton says:

            thanks Yahtzee. long time no see. Hope you are well.

            That photo I’ve seen “elsewhere” let’s say and I’m curious what the source is. The three cones DON’T appear to be where they are in other photos/ screen grabs.

            It’s a puzzling picture if these cones were to somehow indicate where evidence was found.

        • yahtzeebutterfly says:

          Fred, I signed up for a wordpress account with this new handle.

          I was formerly “You all have thoughtful comments” (yahtc which I always pronounced in my head as ‘yahtzee’)

          • willisnewton says:

            Okay I looked at that ABC sourced “exclusive” cell phone video that has the three cones near and alongside the body, which is covered at this time by two sheets. This is fairly early in the aftermath and presumably before the arrival of detectives and the police chief Jackson. At this point the cones are seemingly for crowd control and not making any objects. At this point it’s debatable if Ferguson dispatch even knew there was a homicide. Police SUVs are being arranged to cordon off the body, and the reporter mistakenly identifies a police vehicle with flashing sirens as Wilson’s vehicle, which it isn’t. Wilson never put his flashers on,and the vehicle is in the wrong place facing the wrong way.

            I’m very glad to see this video however as it puts the screen grab in context of time.

  15. Crusty/Crazy:

    You have been posting from at least 10 different IP addresses. I need a credible explanation or I am going to ban you.

    • crustyolemothman says:

      Professor, I have only had one computer, and access to one internet account, and I know of no way that I could be posting from more that one IP… and no if you wish to address me on my e-mail address, I will be happy to provide you with my internet access account.

      • PhillyBoyRoy says:

        Sorry to hear about your IP issues. There are lot of other good sites you could post at instead. For instance, Talk Left is great.

        • Malisha says:

          uh…didn’t “Talk Left” call Trayvon Martin a thug, insist that he beat Fogen’s head on the ground until nearly killing him, and help the fund-raising efforts for Fogen? Didn’t Jeralyn Merritt of “Talk Left” ban posters who supported the Trayvon Martin contingent, and call the witness who said he realized a kid had been killed “the hysterical teacher”?

          I wouldn’t go there if you paid me.

          • Two sides to a story says:

            You could have a dissenting opinion with the Fogen case if you were a long-time poster and really careful about how you worded your post. But yeah, JM is definitely a piece of work and controls Talk Left with an iron fist. She deletes stuff right and left. She seems to be mostly avoiding the Wilson-Brown saga except for the open threads and is concentrating on ISIS and other stuff instead. So far, at least.

    • crustyolemothman says:

      Professor, please check your e-mail.

  16. YQ says:

    Question about the shooting:

    I have heard that there were 2 sets of vollies fired by Fogen2.0. The first volley seems to be at the beginning of the pursuit and then Michael Brown jerks and turns around. The second volley seems to be those kill shots to the chest and head, unfortunately. Again, this is judging from what is known thus far.

    This does (to me) show intent to kill with malicious behavior. Wouldn’t the mere fact that there was second volley also be a crucial piece of evidence? Or would that make no difference since Wilson was a cop?

    And where in the world is Wilson?

    • willisnewton says:

      You are close, but not accurate on the info regarding the two volleys. There were two volleys, notwithstanding the initial shot that may have occurred inside the SUV.

      No one to my knowledge is saying directly that the pause was between the teen twitching and the final volley.

      I tend to think, based on an examination of the area, and the geometry and distance covered, that the first “volley” was immediately after Wilson exited his SUV, essentially pot shots fired in anger, and that the final, fatal volley was as he marched in on the teen who stopped running after 40 yards, winded and ready to give up. In a moment of anger. Wilson wanted to catch or “get” the teen more than the teen felt he needed to run away, and may have thought the shots fired were warning shots at best.

      Brown was a “big boy” and running on open ground with, sadly, flip flops and no cover save the car that his companion Johnson hid behind that seems to have been fairly close to the SUV Wilson blocked the road with. Jpohnson watched them both pass him by from this nearby cover. If Brown had been closer to cover, he might be alive as Wilson’s emotions cooled over time, possibly. We don’t know.

    • PhillyBoyRoy says:

      That’s what I thought, too. I mean what was the need for the fatal head shots other than to commit murder?

    • MichelleO says:

      He’s probably hiding in Jacksonville, Fla., the Hillbilly Riviera of the South. That’s where Fogan.1 was hiding when he was being sought.

  17. crustyolemothman says:

    Now that I have hit the hornets nest squarely in the front, but the hornets have yet to respond, I’ll stir the nest a little more about some of your favorite stories. Let’s take a look at the allegation of a strong armed robbery minutes before the shooting. There was a video posted several days ago that had been “briebarted” to make it seem as if MB had paid for the merchandise he left with. Might I first point out the DJ has admitted to his part in the alleged robbery, MB’s family has not denied it is him in the video. I’ll once again post the entire video for you to actually examine.

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/multimedia/videos/ferguson-police-release-convenience-store-surveillance-video/youtube_ae9a6411-dfa2-548f-9aa2-07154c048d9c.html#utm_source=stltoday.com&utm_campaign=hot-topics-2&utm_medium=direct

    If you look you will realize that the store clerk is not at the register where MB is at, nor will you see him reach into his pocket to get money or even to put change back into his pocket, but perhaps he had a charge account? Do you notice that DJ puts the items that he was handed back on the counter before leaving the store, think for a moment, if they were bought and paid for would he have put them back?
    We argue that the timing of the release was bad, but was it really? Could it not indicate MB’s frame of mind at the time he encounter DW? You might get a pretty good idea of that mindset when after pushing the store owner and the owner followed MB turned and physically intimidated the store owner in a threatening manner. While none of us were present when the event took place, would it be safe to guess that MB reacted rather vocal and possibly violently at being stopped by a police office for what he probably guessed was a response to the crime he allegedly just committed? We have DJ’s version of what took place in the encounter, but if I were to guess, parts of it may not have occurred like described, possibly out of fear on the part of DJ as to what the community reaction toward a snitch… Now does any of what I said mean that I think MB should have been shot and killed? Not at all, it means at this point we still don’t know enough factually to assume the truth…
    Now time for all you hornets to strike…. especially those of you who because of bias do not want to accept that we still don’t know if the truths we are throwing out there are based on bias/anger/emotion…

    • JJ says:

      Trisha added a transcript to the end of the previous thread “Grand Jury should indict….” after most had left to read this thread. I’m copying it here for easier reference:

      Trisha0620 says:
      August 23, 2014 at 11:56 pm
      here is the transcript of the Store Owners Lawyers interview with CNN
      JAY KANZLER, ATTORNEY OF THE STORE ALLEGEDLY ROBBERY BY MICHAEL BROWN: Hello.

      WHITFIELD: Hi. Can you give us an idea how is that store clerk, how is he doing, and what’s his feeling about all that’s transpired since last Saturday?

      KANZLER: Well, I have not personally spoken to the store cl1erk in the video. Ever since the video was released, he has left and he not working there just trying to stay out of the commotion. The family itself has been upset by everything that’s gone on in Ferguson. But again, has been working very closely with the people there and they stand with the people of Ferguson for transparency and justice.

      WHITFIELD: OK. Are you then — and you said you haven’t spoken with the clerk, but can you, as attorney representing him, can you take us to Saturday, August 9th? Can you give us an idea of what your client who is seen in that surveillance video being pushed by a man police say is Michael Brown, what his version of events are? What happened before that confrontation seen in the pictures?

      KANZLER: Sure. I mean, first of all, my clients have never said that that is Michael Brown in the video. In fact, before that weekend they had never seen that individual, Michael Brown, or the individual on the tape in the store. What I can say is that what occurs on the tape, what you see on the tape, did occur in the store. Somebody did come in. Somebody did attempt to steal cigars. Just as that individual on the tape can be seen doing it, he reached around the counter and tried to grab additional cigars from the clerk. There were words exchanged with the female cashier and then the store clerk did try to go to the front door to lock the door and to talk to the individual in the video.

      WHITFIELD: We apologize for that. So sorry about that. All right, looks like we lost that interview as well. We are going to try to clean it up and fix it. Looks like he may be back. Mr. Kanzler?

      All right, so sorry about that. We have some kind of technical problem. That was strange.

      All right, so now this clerk did try to, you said, stop the person who was walking out by talking to him. We can see that your client, the store clerk, is half of the size of or much smaller than the man exiting. What exactly was said and why did your client, this clerk, feel comfortable enough to try to talk to or stop the person who was exiting?

      KANZLER: Well, first of all, you know, the folks that own the store are part of the community. They’ve been there a long time. And many of the people that they interact with on a daily basis are their friends. They know them on a first name basis. They are considered almost family.

      WHITFIELD: Was this a familiar face then, this young man?

      KANZLER: I’m sorry, Fredricka, I could not hear that.

      WHITFIELD: That the person in this tape that police say is Michael Brown, were the people in the store familiar with this person, this face? Have they seen this person before?

      KANZLER: No. They had not, Fredricka. But what I was saying is it’s not unusual for all of the people that come in to know the owners of the store and vice versa. And they do feel comfortable and the other side of it is that they are very protective of their livelihood. This is, they work very hard and so when there’s an incident, he felt comfortable trying to lock the door and say don’t take this, pay for this.

      WHITFIELD: So then minutes later there were gunshots just a few blocks away. Does your client say? Do the people in the store say they heard that and thought there was a relationship — ?

      KANZLER: No.

      WHITFIELD: No. They didn’t even hear the gunshots?

      KANZLER: No, they did not. In fact, they did not hear about the incident until much later. In fact, they had not called the police after the incident that is shown on the tape. Somebody inside the store, a mother with a daughter, was the one that called 911 and the police arrived because of that phone call.

      WHITFIELD: So then once they learned that there was a shooting and then an 18-year-old was dead and that police were making a correlation between the robbery that took place in that store and the death of that young person, what’s been their reaction, what do they think?

      KANZLER: I don’t think they made a connection. I think the two were distinct in their minds and I don’t know if they put two and two together. The next time they had any indication that there may be some connection is when St. Louis county contacted them with a search warrant and said they were taking the hard drive from the surveillance system and they indicated that it was in relationship with the Michael Brown investigation.

      WHITFIELD: OK. And meantime your client continues to not come forward and hasn’t been seen in public in a while. Is there an explanation behind that? Is it grief? Is it fear? What?

      KANZLER: Well, I think there’s a little bit of fear. And it was the incident now takes on larger significance. It’s not my client. It’s that particular clerk. The others that work in the store, the other members of the family, have been at the store each and every day greeting their customers, interacting with them, standing with them. Unfortunately, after the events of Friday night they had to shut the store down and they’ve been closed since Friday night and will remain closed through the weekend. But they do intend to open up as soon as it seems safe and again, reengage with the community of Ferguson.

      WHITFIELD: Jay Kanzler, thank you so much for your time. Appreciate it.

      KANZLER: Thank you very much. I appreciate being on.

    • Disappointed says:

      No a hornet. My problem with the shooting is this if someone breaks into my house and I get my gun if they turn and run I’m not allowed to shoot them in the back. The threat has left the building. Therefore I do not believe the police should be shooting citizens in the back/firing on them when they flee. 2 nod if said officer has shot you more than 1 time and did not kill if there is no gun in suspects hand the shooting stops. 6 shots are excessive. If you do not think there is race issues than you are kidding yourself. I watched a special on BET this morning about Freguson. I think I am going to believe the residence that the police force might be a bit racist. Jmo

      • Bill Taylor says:

        the attitude of the police force was exposed by the 35 year veteran of the sheriffs force….there is no way that guy was with them 35 years and his views not KNOWN by his fellow officers, his attitude was at a minimum ACCEPTED.

        • Disappointed says:

          Let me see if I can reply to Bill without the typos. I agree. You know “the guys” who back you up. You know a persons heart especially after 35 years. Disgusting.

        • Two sides to a story says:

          I agree and I betcha donuts to dollars that there are way more than five officers on that crew that need to be suspended or investigated. That kinda attitude usually runs pretty deep when authorities have gotten away with it for decades.

      • crustyolemothman says:

        Disappointed, I agree with you not being allowed to shoot the person in the back. As I have stated more than once, there is a strong possibility that when we have all the facts that DW did in fact murder MB… But there are still many unanswered question, that will be necessary to achieve a conviction… Too bad there is no video of the actual confrontation and the shooting that followed. I do recall at the time that it was alleged that the police had seized a number of cell phones for the images they contained, perhaps one of those phones will contain the images necessary to determine what happened, allowing a jury to render a verdict based on factual proof. This incident is so emotional charged and so much anger is present, there will be a strong push to discredit any and all witnesses, and that is why video evidence would be of value…

    • YQ says:

      Not a hornet – I just assumed that the robbery would be irrelevant since it never happened and/or was never reported. And also due to fact that DW was proven to be unaware of it at the time.

      Uhmm. The “snitching” part…
      Correct me if I’m wrong but are you saying that the people in the community of Ferguson wouldn’t be truthful about what they saw due to the “proverbial snitch rule” in the hood? So therefore we shouldn’t believe their testimonies?

      Just a question.

      • crustyolemothman says:

        YQ, The point of relevancy that the robbery brings is the state of mind that MB held when stopped by DW. Trust me, it will be a factor brought out by a defense attorney when or if this goes to trial. To think it will not come up is not realistic. The time to deal with that problem is before the trial and not be broad sided by the defense… Most of DJ’s story coincides very closely to the balance of the witnesses, the only part that could be called into question is the part that only he, MB and DW were part of and that is the initial portion of the encounter. That is where again the story needs to be looked at real close to ensure that a good defense attorney does not cause his testimony to backfire and result in a non conviction…

        • YQ says:

          With all due respect, MB wouldn’t be the one on trial. The question we should be asking is: “what was Wilson’s state of mind during the shooting?”. MB is dead and all we’ll ever have about him is speculation.

          • Bill Taylor says:

            immediately before the fatal shots it appears browns state of mind was SCARED for his life running away from somebody shooting at him.

          • Two sides to a story says:

            Trouble is, Darren Wilson’s supporters are working overtime to demonize MB and his family online and in the media, just as they did with Trayvon Martin. There may be a lot of stuff not admissable in court, but the shizzaz is being dug up and / or made up and paraded around cyberspace as we speak.

            However, what worked in FL may not work as well in MO. Ted Wafer’s defense tried to demonize Renisha McBride in MI and that didn’t work out so well for him.

            Fact is, we have due process in this country and conservatives need to honor that part of law and order. I’m tired of the cherry-picking done by the Treestump types and their minions. I think all police killings need to be examined in a court of law or by some sort of citizen review, whether or not LEO are arrested. Internal police investigations exonerating officers need to come to a screeching halt.

  18. crustyolemothman says:

    Professor, here is the link that “willisnewton” has provided to his conclusions.

    Canfield, facing SE.  note bend in sidewalk, and hedge

    Now this “NON CREDIBLE / LIAR” would like to point out that I have tried to tell you folks the 35 foot was not true, your own star witness in her video taken immediately after the shooting stated the officer was following MB. Perhaps the 35 foot figure was based on an assumption that the vehicle in the video that was approx. 35 foot from the body was Wilson’s patrol car. However there is a problem with that, again as I tried to point out and was considered not credible if that was Wilson’s patrol car then MB was indeed shot in the back due to the feet toward the vehicle and MB laying face down. I get accused of being a supporter of the evil police when I point out problems in the popular story line about the murder. Sorry but I don’t deal well with fiction, but deal with facts quite well, and if you want justice then you need the facts, if you want revenge then fallacy and innuendo will work just fine. What do you folks want, the truth that is factual or the truth that suits your desires. Feel free to again call me a liar and not credible because that is your right… I might suggest you take a long hard look at your allegations because if you fail to do so, you will never see justice based on much of what has been thrown out there in the court of public opinion at this point…

    • MKX says:

      How does what wiilisnewton posted prove that 35 feet in not true?

      It was the PD that put out the 35 feet figure. And I believe it was the distance that the officer shot and killed Brown.

      So how does this contravene what the “star” witnesses {note there are four} who claim the officer got out and pursued while firing at Brown?

      If anything, it makes there testimony credible in that there has to be a distance that the officer got from his car taken into account. And 130 feet take about five seconds to cover and would make sense in that the officer needed to get out of his car and start chasing. So 95 feet from the car in about five seconds while shooting with his gun is not unreasonable not does it debunk what the witnesses have stated.

      Which is a lot more to go on than the officers report – nothing.

      • willisnewton says:

        If you can do the 40 yard dash in five seconds, you have a career in the NFL waiting for you.

        I’m not interested in infighting, so what I have to say is not trying to support any theory or opinion already on this site. I’m giving my opinion now: the SUV that is seen in the SAME FRAME as the body of Mike Brown is not the vehicle Wilson drove. It’s almost impossible to take a single shot that would have shown the Wilson SUV and the body in the same frame. This was a running “battle.” in video game terms, which is an unfortunate metaphor to employ, but I hope it conveys my idea with the limited means I have in my head just now. In at least one eyewitness video, you can see this close to the body vehicle moving to park there, and the wheels are turned in a manner that show it was not backed into that position. (That ain’t it. Keep looking. Too easy.)

        This bogus SUV does seem to be around 35 feet from the body, so maybe people are making a mistake based on that.

        For those that don’t want to read a bunch of notes on some seemingly random photos, let me say this, so you can form your own conclusions, and we can arrive at a consensus together: the SUV that is seen with police tape over the rooftop – and later with police tape surrounding the vehicle as to seal the doors seems the most likely candidate for the vehicle of Wilson. It’s parked in the road straddling the yellow median line at a slight angle as though backed into position. Brown’s red St Louis ball cap was found near this vehicle. This vehicle goes away before the SUV shown moving near the body does. This vehicle has cones placed near it as though there were shell casings scattered about near the driver’s door. And so on. Absent police transparency, we can’t know much, but this is the better guess.

      • J4TMinATL says:

        There are 5. One is unamed who recorded scene and his neighbor friend was asking questions in background that may be considered contradictory.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Oh, that’s Jean Dodge’s site. He or she did a great compilation of photo evidence for the Fogen case.

    • Trisha0620 says:

      if you go to 047 you can clearly see the distance down the street where the SUV is sitting

  19. willisnewton says:

    Looking at eyewitness videos and local TV coverage of the street where Micheal Brown was killed, I carefully mapped the scene today and came to the conclusion that Brown ran some 125-130 feet from the SUV window of Wilson’s car to the spot where he was fatally shot. In sports terms, that’s an altercation at home plate that leads in a direct line over the pitcher’s mound to a person being killed on second base. (127’3″) i have supporting photos on my flickr site if anyone is interested.

    • Please provide us with a link to your site. You did excellent work in the Zimmerman case and I would like to see what you’ve done.

      Do you have an opinion regarding why the cops are claiming 35 feet?

      • PhillyBoyRoy says:

        Bum rushing from 125 feet away doesn’t sound very threatening.

        • crustyolemothman says:

          PhillyBoyRoy, No disrespect meant, but if you stick to that story you are saying the young lady that did the video immediately after the shooting was lying when she said DW was following (in pursuit of?) MB. So to imply that they were 125 feet apart is not realistic at best…

          • MKX says:

            How is she lying?

            A guy getting out of a car an pursuing moves X distance from his car.

            Here is your quote:

            “lying when she said DW was following (in pursuit of?) MB”

            130 feet – X = 35 feet. 35 feet being what the PD stated was the distance. So we have 95 feet of following or pursuit, I don’t find that unreasonable nor contravening what the witness stated.

            We also have the witness who stated that Brown crumpled who also point out that the officer was past a car that the other guy was hiding behind.

          • crustyolemothman says:

            MKX, The witness is not lying. The statement that MB was shot 35 foot from the patrol car is the part that is not accurate. For all we know the officer might have shot from anywhere from 2 foot to and unknown distance. The point that I am making is that the shooting did not take place where some seem to be claiming and that is 35 foot from the patrol car. I pointed this out before and was called a liar…

          • Crusty,

            No one has called you a liar and there are no hornets present.

            The chief of police came up with the 35′ distance and we have been working with that number as an undisputed fact.

            Due to Willis Newton’s work using Google Earth street view, it now appears that Wilson’s SUV was parked 125′ from the body.

            The witness Piaget Crenshaw said Wilson chased after Brown squeezing off shots on the run.

            Assuming the 35′ distance has any validity, Wilson was either 35′ from his SUV firing at Brown, who was 90′ away or he was 90′ from his SUV firing at Brown, who was 35′ away.

            I think the former is more likely than the latter, but others may not agree.

            Perhaps you have a different theory.

            Either way, only Wilson’s supporters claim that Brown was rushing at Wilson when he fired the fatal shots. Presumably, they were repeating what he said because they did not witness the shooting.

            Given the location of Brown’s body 125′ from the SUV, it now seems even less likely that Brown stopped, turned and rushed back toward Wilson.

            Please calm down. No one is picking on you.

            Let’s keep this thread focused on the topic rather than imagined slights.

          • crustyolemothman says:

            Professor, You have hit the point that I have been attempting to make for several days. The 35 foot statement is not realistic.. As I attempted several times to point out the witnesses have stated that DW was following (chasing?) MB, and the 35 foot from his patrol vehicle could not be correct… Now let me once again state, I am not defending the police officer, but if you really want a conviction, you being a retired attorney are well aware of the need for facts. We won’t get a conviction based on what we have been dwelling on up to this point, not enough facts and too much anger and emotion… I would ask simply that one poster simply quit his attacks against me, while you perhaps don’t consider his attacks of a personal nature, I do…

          • crustyolemothman says:

            Professor, I failed to answer a direct question. IMO the shots were fired at a range closer than 35 foot. If the shots were at 90 foot then the officer was a much better shot under stress than what I saw in combat many years ago… Here is what I expect to hear from the defense, DW after having been in an altercation with MB gave chase, when MB turned toward him he thought MB had a weapon and he fired. Now we need to figure out how to prove that DW was aware that MB did not have a weapon… until after the shooting ended. We have to go back to the basic training (flawed as it might be) and remember the officer is trained to respond to perceived threats to his safety… Simply put can we safely assume that DW knew that MB did not possess a weapon? Too bad that we allow anger and emotion cause us not to look real hard at the presumed evidence, much like you would have done in the past if you were representing DW..

          • PhillyBoyRoy says:

            Shooting someone from 125 or 35 feet away is excessive no matter the circumstances.

            You want to argue the “facts” and details, you keep saying you are fact-based and want to seek the truth, but quite simply the fact that you don’t believe that shooting at someone who is 35 or 125 feet away, or chasing someone for 90 feet while they run and you shoot at them (not to mention this person is unarmed, surrendering, yet eventually is shot the head while he is on the ground) is morally reprehensible and can be weirdly rationalized with nit-picky details kind of puts you at odds with most of us here who don’t believe in executions of kids in the street.

      • Bill Taylor says:

        professor…..please deal with the posts below….playing devils advocate is a good course to follow when seeking the truth but that person is NOT doing that….they are posting nonsense and attempting to start some BS here…they did it with me the other day and now are challenging YOU and everyone here even mentioning their intent……ONLY VERY STUPID people or racists can believe one iota of the hearsay officers story.

        • crustyolemothman says:

          Mr. Taylor, just because you have what seems to be a personal agenda against me, does not make me a liar, and I quite frankly think that your accusations show a definite bias on your part. I might suggest that your now calling me stupid is extremely childish on your part. I would like to know what part of the officers story I have addressed here today? Absolutely none of his story has been, and your calling me a racist is a very poorly conceived allegation toward my character. I would strongly question your motives in this? Is it to continue to pass half truths off as facts? However this is the professors sight and if he wishes to banish me at your request then it is his option. I, unlike you, do not post to be popular, I would much rather deal with fact…

          • Bill Taylor says:

            i did NOT call you any name never called you a liar or a racist i DID post the description of some folks that YOU are now saying fits YOU………..you are intellectually far out of your league and are clearly here to disrupt…….YOU did call the folks here a NAME you called us all hornets and part of some nest……i responded because BS like you post needs a response….also folks with basic intelligence know the difference between sight and site……..

          • crustyolemothman says:

            Mr. Taylor, I might suggest you go back and read your own posts. Granted, I might not possess the great intellectual quality that you claim to possess, so on that part you might be correct. Now, I will say this, I attempted to not address you about your comments the other day, and it is you that launched a personal attack against me again with your post today, and not me against you. I am quite aware you do not agree with me, but I would ask you to cease the personal attacks… Like I said this is not my “SITE” but is instead the Professors, I will leave it up to him to deal with your allegations.

          • Bill Taylor says:

            i know NOTHING about you on a personal level and could NOT possibly launch any personal attacks…i have commented on the content of your posts but made NO comment about YOU as a person…….saying your post had a lie in it is NOT calling you a liar……..what precise personal comment do you claim i have made about YOU the person?????

            i have not asked for you or anyone else to be banished asking for you intentional inflammatory post which indeed DID call everyone here a name “hornet” and claim all here are part of some collective was LYING about everyone here…….and your false accusations since are also LIES………and again pointing out your falsehoods is NOT calling you a liar or any other name.

          • J4TMinATL says:

            Crusty,

            You even pissed me off the other day. You’re posting on Xena’s page too.

            You think it will come down to distance. I don’t because of laws and individual department policies.

            I think it will come down to DW using deadly force to apprehend (seize) a fleeing suspect that he had probable cause to believe he was in a danger himself or MB was a danger to others.

            DW cannot use deadly force on an unarmed, non violent suspect fleeing who does not pose a serious risk to public safety.

            Doesn’t mean I think DW was justified.

          • crustyolemothman says:

            J4TMinATL, Because it appears that all I am doing is pissing other posters off, it seems that I owe each and all of them an apology. My intent was not to piss people off, but regardless of my intent that is what has happened. Because of this I was in the process of resolving the problem in a way that will solve the problem in a way that many will be happy to hear. I am truly sorry that you feel that I have disrespected you or your opinions, and I am sincere about that. I am now going to ride off into the sunset and cause no farther problems… Thank you for your message, and feel free to let everyone else know that the problem is resolved…

          • J4TMinATL says:

            Crusty,

            You’ve said I owe y’all all an apology before and that you’d quit speaking to Bill.

            Why are you acting like you’re a victim and the guilt trip. I don’t get it.

      • willisnewton says:
        Canfield, facing SE.  note bend in sidewalk, and hedge

        This is a link to a dozen screen grabs. You have to click the first one, and go to the bottom right to a small cartoon bubble icon to see the notes. The explanation is in the notes.

        What’s unclear so far is how far the final shots were fired from, but you will get an impression that it certainly wasn’t 3 feet, as some have claimed. Again using a sports analogy, it seems Wilson passed the pitchers mound easily, in his pursuit but how far is unclear to me yet. Seemingly corroborating eyewitness accounts, however the evidence marker cones progress in a line towards the body as though the shooter was advancing while firing.

        (There are traffic cones set about on the scene by investigators that seem to be where evidence was marked and measured. I don’t yet have a clear shot that one can determine distance from.)

        To my knowledge, the person who made an estimate of the distance was the eyewitness who missed the “hands up” moment by virtue of moving from his window to his front door. He claims 20-25 feet, but of course that’s a guess. (Is his name Bryant? Davis?)

        What is your source, good professor, of the statement you made that the cops say 35 feet?

        • Nef05 says:

          WARNING: GRAPHIC VIDEO, GRAPHIC LANGUAGE

          Ok, this guy covered the news station with his own, so I can’t find the original newscast. If you disregard how the guy making the video has the story ALL wrong (stole B&M from a gas station), the newscast does show some length-wise shots of the street, including the very first frame and at 2:03. You can see the round bush and the bend in the sidewalk that correspond to the landmarks in your pics.

        • Trisha0620 says:

          I have located some photo’s that go with what you have in that link,

    • MKX says:

      That makes sense. The witnesses have stated that the officer got of the car and pursued MB while firing at him. So the 35 feet that the PD put out to the media could be 130 feet – X, wherein X is the distance the officer ran from his car during his pursuit till he fired the fatal shots, thus indicating that the officer was about 95 feet from his car. Two of the witnesses have stated that the officer who was chasing Brown was past a car that the friend, a third witness, was hiding behind.

      if Brown’s body was only 35 feet from the car, the pursuit that has been seen by witnesses would put the officer less than 35 feet away from Brown when the fatal shots were fired.

      • willisnewton says:

        agree. Look at the pics I posted on flickr, linked above. The cop, Wilson, ran as far as a runner goes to say, first base – aprox 90 feet. That’s a very rough estimate. I need help from those who LIKE this sort of thing, to sort through all the local television reports from the scene. I think I have seen all the cell phone videos from residents. One good photo or screen shot might be enough to make a decent judgement by.

        Little of this “proves” anything, but it is illuminating to see in a visual manner. To run that far takes more than a few seconds. This was a dogged pursuit. And a “40 yard dash” at the same time.

    • I agree that the distance in the photos appears to be 125′ and not 35′

      Assuming 35′ was the distance between Wilson and Brown when Wilson fired the fatal shots, Wilson must have pursued Brown to a location approximately 90′ from his SUV. He fired the fatal shots from there.

      Or, he was 35′ from his SUV firing at Brown who was 90′ away from him.

      The bum-rush story doesn’t work.

      Either scenario agrees with Piaget Crenshaw’s description of the shooting.

  20. bettykath says:

    I think the SC ruling makes it very hard for people who have been detained to know what to do. You need to invoke Miranda before hearing the Miranda warning? And if you choose to not speak, that can be a sign that you’re guilty, not that you know that the cops can twist things around and that your lawyer much prefers that you keep your mouth shut. A new round of education is needed.

  21. Sophia33 says:

    This was an excellent question today and a great response. Thank you professor.

  22. J4TMinATL says:

    9 whites, 3 blacks on the grand jury

    Random my ass.

  23. Two sides to a story says:

    Too bad so much depends upon the grand jury. It didn’t matter here in Orange County, California that Fullerton Police officers Manuel Ramos and Jay Cicinelli clearly harrassed and then murdered a homeless man and there was a full video accounting of the incident. The trial jury supported police and that was the end of it, no matter that one parent of the homeless man had already won a civil suit against the city / PD. The other parent’s civil case (they are divorced) goes to trial in December. There’s also a federal investigation. Local gov’ts would rather spend shizzaz tons of money protecting their own than concede wrongdoing.

    I hope the grand jury isn’t so accomodating with Darren Wilson, but because there isn’t any video of the entire incident, it seems even less likely that a grand jury will indict him. I’m still hopeful anyway cause I can’t stand to feel defeated beforehand.

    • YQ says:

      Was it the Kelly Thomas case? That was god-awful!

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Yes, the Kelly Thomas case. Dreadful behavior by police and by City of Fullerton as well as crap prosecuting by the Orange County attorney’s office, and twisted logic by the jury.

        • MichelleO says:

          I remember when that happened. I was so appalled that mainstream media had not picked it up, that I started a letter writing campaign to as many news outlets as possible regarding this story.

          • YQ says:

            Yeah. Cops tend to abuse homeless people from time to time and it goes unchecked. Value of the victims life was considered most definitely in determining the outcome. Everyone’s life should be valued the same. So sorry for Kelly Thomas, too. He didn’t deserve this as well.

          • Two sides to a story says:

            Thank you, MichelleO ! ❤

            Lately Kelly Thomas's father has felt a lot of despair that the case has not gotten enough national press, but many people are assuring him that there are many people he'll never know or never hear about who follow these cases across the nation and around the world who care deeply!

          • Two sides to a story says:

            Thank you, YQ. ❤ It's good to follow all these cases and keep track of them because there's no low or high value that gov't should be able to place upon any person's life and police should never be allowed to randomly snuff people out in fits of anger.

        • MichelleO says:

          Cali used to be such a cool place. I could say that I don’t know what happened to it, but I know exactly what happened to it: Bush/Cheney and Arnold Schwartzennegro.

          • Two sides to a story says:

            Orange County, Cali was a conservative, Republican stronghold long before that crowd. Home of Nixon, etc. and it attracted lots of conservative whites from other parts of the country. However, though that viewpoint is changing along with the population, which is now at least 60% non-white, there is still that element of conservative control in local govt. Not to mention that the huge population growth here has fueled a big city mentality, and so even small cities in Orange County have police departments with a Los Angeles PD type mentality. They may be even worse in some cases. Santa Ana, Anaheim, and Fullerton PD in particular have a bad reputation.

  24. The police have circled the wagons and it’s going to be very hard to get any justice in the Ferguson case (an inner-ring suburb of St. Louis). In the meantime, police officers in the city of St. Louis (where I live) have killed a 25-year-old black man. The man, who appeared to have mental issues, was ambling about the street with what police described as a “steak knife” carried in an “overhand” (not overhead; hands were at his sides) fashion. The first two officers on the scene each shot the man six times within 23 seconds of their arrival.

    Video shot by a bystander clearly refutes the police version of events: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/two-st-louis-area-police-shootings-are-alike-and-not/article_558856ed-2e84-53b7-819e-30f0a65ce11c.html

    • J4TMinATL says:

      Friendly warning for those who haven’t seen this from Fred’s thread,

      GRAPHIC.

    • Motor City Lady says:

      I don’t believe Kajiemi Powell had mental issues. I think he was making a political statement. I’m completely discouraged that it seems his voice was silenced both literally and figuratively. I have read nothing at all about his killing since everyone tossed out the “mentally ill” theory.

      As if his defiant, “Kill me now!” could only be the raving of a lunatic, we’ve heard no word from his family and friends; no information about his feelings about Michael Brown’s killing. He’s been forgotten, which is all the sadder because, unlike Michael Brown’s killing, his death was recorded in its entirety. All it takes is some clearheaded viewing to come to the conclusion he was *not crazy*.

      So, he died in vain. That’s what makes this truly tragic.

      • Not saying you are wrong, but I believe he was suffering from some form of mental illness when he was shot. I will admit that I lack sufficient evidence to reach a firm conclusion.

        Like you, I have been wondering about the absence of reports by family and friends.

        Someone must know him, but no one is talking. I find that odd.

        • Two sides to a story says:

          This report on 8-21 says police are attempting to notify the family. Perhaps this is why we know so little and maybe we’ll hear more soon.

          http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/crime/2014/08/19/goodfellow-west-florissant-officer-shooting/14293199/

        • Motor City Lady says:

          Mr. Leatherman, did you happen to listen to this radio interview? It was published online the day after your Kajiemi Powell blog entry (to which I replied I thought Mr. Powell had acted lucidly, not as if he had mental problems.)

          http://www.blacktalkradionetwork.com/2014/08/22/people-in-stlouissay-kajieme-powell-is-a-marty-and-victim-of-police-murder/#respond

          There’s conversation “out there” speculating about the whole “mentally ill” story regarding Mr. Powell’s actions that resulted in being killed by police. There’s just not *enough* conversation, in my opinion, and virtually no information that sheds light on why he did what he did.

          • You have caused me to reexamine the case and suspend judgment pending the publication of new information.

            I’m puzzled by the absence of information about him. It seems like no one knew him.

          • Bill Taylor says:

            one thing i saw clearly and am sure i am correct about…notice when the 2 officers arrive the fella approaches them then stops he sees they have weapons trained on him and then he turns his head looking back and seeing what he thought people were IN the line of fire behind him, so he moved to his left up on that curb getting those folks OUT of the line of fire……..i think he was making a political statement saying even here today they will still shoot down a black man that in reality is NOT a threat to them…….notice other folks walked by him with no problem, so clearly he wasnt just harming folks for no reason………

          • Motor City Lady says:

            Bill Taylor, yes. I agree, in lieu of factual, reliable information to the contrary, that this was a political statement on Kajieme Powell’s part. Does that make him mentally disturbed? Some might say, “Yes.”

            I’ve watched all the videos (the store surveillance tapes and the cellphone video taken by the bystander.)

            I’ve come to the conclusion that the store clerk was the “homey” mentioned by the man with the cell phone, who told him to go record the scene. The store clerk is the smaller man in the red ball cap and striped shirt. Presumably he returned to the sidewalk in front of the store to wait for the man with the phone (and presumably the police.) The cell phone owner greets him as he approaches and asks him if this is the guy who took the sodas from the store.

            The store clerk is the one who called the police. I’ve listened very carefully to the conversation and the video-taker asked him if he (the clerk) called the police. It *sounds* as if the clerk answered, “He told me to.” It’s very difficult to hear, but a sound technician could clean up the recording and try to isolate the background voices.

            Right after that, the clerk can be heard trying to tell Powell that what he’s doing “isn’t the way, bro.” I think the clerk realized what Powell was doing and tried to stop him. At least one other male voice can be heard telling Powell to stop, too.

            There was definitely some verbal exchange outside the store between Powell and the store clerk after Powell left with the honeybuns. Right after that would be when the store clerk called the police.

            Is it possible Powell *told* him to call the police? Would the clerk have called them over a few dollars’ worth of shoplifted snacks otherwise? These are questions that should be answered. The clerk is *right there*, clearly identifiable, and he would know exactly what happened in the few minutes prior to the police’s arrival.

        • Motor City Lady says:

          “I’m on Instagram. I’m on Facebook. I’m tired of this shit.”

          https://www.facebook.com/antoine.powell2

          (Click the cover photo for comments. This is Kajieme. Still trying to find his Instagram account, if he did have one.)

  25. concernedczen says:

    I totally agree Malisha

  26. Malisha says:

    You know, I really don’t think a police officer should have the choice to file a police report or NOT to file a police report when he has fired his service weapon. He was on duty and uniformed, driving a vehicle owned by the PEOPLE, punched in on the clock, a public servant, firing a gun owned by the PEOPLE with bullets in it owned by the PEOPLE and he fired those bullets voluntarily. He was at work when he did all this. His time was not his own; his acts were not his own; his time was public and his acts were official. After shooting Trayvon Martin, Fogen had the right to remain silent (he didn’t want to). After shooting Mike Brown, Wilson was still on the clock. He had committed a public act. I do not believe he had the right not to make a complete report of his actions in the name of the PEOPLE that very day.

    It would be an unqualified pre-act immunity for officers to be able to choose not to make police reports any time they felt vulnerable to prosecution for their conduct. This would be unconstitutional because it would violate the PEOPLE’s right to due process. WE the people must be allowed to see what WE are doing; a police officer using our authority to shoot his service weapon must report on what he did and when and why and how; otherwise we are being subjected to theft (of our tax dollars) and tyranny.

    • YQ says:

      100% true! Awesome comment!

    • texad says:

      I agree. And I thought the reason for keeping police who act badly on PAID administrative leave (as despicable as may be) is so they would HAVE to answer questions because they are obligated to as government employees. And if they refuse to answer they could be terminated. But maybe the police union gives them SPECIAL protection. Either way, it’s a disgusting turn of events.

      If there is anyone on the planet who does understand the anger and frustration of African American mothers and fathers and uncles and aunts and sisters and brothers-and everyone else who has on ounce of humanity running through their veins-they are NOT paying attention.

    • willisnewton says:

      While i see your sentiment, I think we (as citizens) either have a constitutional right to not self-incriminate, or we don’t. The issue becomes does Wilson’s Fifth amendment trump Brown’s Fourth amendment rights?

      What’s ludicrous is that he would still be on paid leave if he did actually refuse to write a report. He should be fired.

      Also, given the laws and the behavior of the police chief(s), i wouldn’t be surprised if Wilson HAS written a report that remains hidden from the public. Again the real question is will he write a second one at a later date and will it be passed off as a contemporaneous one.

      We’ve seen no transparency thus far. Anything could happen and I would not be surprised. Mike Brown’s DNA could be on the Titanic by now. We’ve been given no reason to trust them.

  27. Michelleo says:

    Professor, in your opinion, is the president a weak man or has the presidency been weakened, and how?

  28. Malisha says:

    The court will simply (a) make Wilson’s pre-arrest silence inadmissible and then (b) make all the hearsay about how he told everyone he knew (and didn’t know) about his having to shoot Brown in self-defense; and then (c) make all the prosecution’s evidence inadmissible; and finally (d) qualify Wilson’s uncle as an expert on whatever expertise is needed at trial and it’s done.

    That’s our court system. The map has already been drawn.

    See, the police really are allowed to kill people they identify as needing killing and that includes:

    (a) designated (by police) Black males;
    (b) designated (by police) mentally ill persons;
    (c) designated (by police) protesters intending to riot; but NOT
    (d) dogs — for that you can get in trouble.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: