Second, he is less inclined to lie about it than Officer Wilson.

Third, if one is interested in this case one examines the testimony and how it may or may not match with the forensics.

Personally I believe Dorian Johnson's testimony regarding the killing is far more credible than that of Wilson.

What do you think?

You can believe the guy who participated in the robbery, I would more likely believe the guy who spent the previous 5 years going to work and hasn't a single credible person claiming him a liar, a racist, or an abuser...not that I believe either. ..

That's why you rush to Wilson's defense - because you don't believe him. Uh-huh.

no doubt who I and most of the public would choose.

The question then, pipo, is why you give Wilson so much deference where others with more than half a working brain beholden to the facts can't?

Hm...

It would be so much easier if there was a single credible story about Wilson abusing authority or racist activity, but alas none exist.

to a murder charge?

If I ever . . . Oh -wait -

Two entireley different justice systems. One for thugs like Wilson and the Zimpig - Another for folks like me.

That's totally - totally not fair that I can't just say - no history of racial prejudice and never murdered anyone before.

Amazing excuse isn't it?

You're right - two different justice systems. 846,000 black men in prison. Black lives matter.

Have a good day JustAnotherGen!

childhood and adult life.

You can read a little of it here:

and the grand jury never heard about it.

Yet in a highly unprecedented move, the prosecutor allowed Wilson to testify at length and not be cross-examined.

At a genuine trial every witness who testifies can be cross-examined.

This case should prosecuted. By a prosecutor with no incentive to act as Wilson's defense attorney.

rather than a real court case with judge and opposing counselor present.

This GJ circus was nothing more than yet another attempt by pro-police authorities to whitewash yet another "one of the own's" crimes against our citizens. It makes me sick to the stomach to have to come to terms that this totalitarian police-state corruption and process is happening right in front of our eyes in a so-called democracy.

as well. Thank goodness DU exists, where at least I can express myself and find a few like-minded people. Power to the people.

Black lives matter.

While I believe each genuine believe their perceptions, some of the claims by Wilson come across as convenient lies which most defendants in general aim their case toward, also cops are human as well who use lying to trick suspects -- they are better at deception & manipulation than the criminals they're chasing.

No one commits perjury more than arresting officers which is an opinion on my part. One, there is evidence of arresting officers committing perjury. Two, your post illustrates that the odds of a jury believing the word over the word's of a police officer is slim to none which shows the low risk nature and besides if a case ends up not being one of the 90%+ convictions by plea or plea deal, the fiction used on a police report will now have to be supported by lies. Third, choosing one account over another when one is telling the factual truth is a set-up to denying the factual reality of something that actually happened. Even the distance on how far away Brown died from the field goal was a lie or error which was off by 103 feet.

To look at something to determine if claims are factual from a logical stand point. If a prison guard denies a beating an inmate claims happened, the answer on who to believe is neither and try to independently verify. Whether we find out for sure or not doesn't change what the factual truth actually is but it is unwise to simply believe something simply because of the source.

The special "cannot tell a lie" acceptance of the word that comes out of the police officer's mouth is baffling with nothing in reality to support such an elevation and this actually enables the cops to lie & easily get away with it.

This professor often writes articles for Police Chief Magazine (which is far from a cop hating magazine) on the subject of noble cause corruption

-------

A recent survey demonstrated that officers felt corruption for personal gain was a much more serious charge than engaging in corrupt behavior that appears "to benefit society at large."7 This sub cultural value system rationalizes constitutional rights violations.

Officers do not normally define "a bending of the rules for a greater good" as misconduct or as corruption; rather, they rationalize that such behavior is part of the job description, in a utilitarian sense, to get the criminals off the streets, regardless of the means.8
<snip>:

The Rationalization Defense
Shortcuts taken in police procedures and investigations in everyday misdemeanor arrests are a large part of noble cause corruption. Rationalizations, such as the "citizen is so drunk he won't remember what happened," may lead to officers' skipping the field sobriety tests or the breath tests, while reporting that they were performed. Before performing a breath alcohol test, officers must read specific constitutional rights to the citizen informing him or her of his or her right to refuse the test and informing the citizen that this refusal, alone, may result in a suspended driver's license. Testimony affirming that specific police procedures were followed, when they were not, is a police crime, especially when confronted with probable cause issues in pretrial motions.

Additionally, the "contempt of cop" or "it's my word against his" attitude opens the door for further shortcuts and constitutional violations. An officer may perform a valid traffic stop, but if the citizen is belligerent or disrespectful, chances are that person is going to jail. In this same vein, officers may issue "sewer tickets"-that is, write a ticket but instead of giving it to the citizen throw it in the sewer-causing a failure to appear in court, a warrant to be issued, and several future problems for the citizen.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=1025&issue_id=102006

Now if most of the public is aware of this and still treats something a police officer says as honest because they agree with the cognitive dissonance, I'm not impressed and doesn't change the factual truth.

Thank you.

killed Michael Brown. I suppose you're saying it's all part of a felony-murder? That's hogwash. The two incidents were completely separate events.

He could be charged with the death, like it or not....

Unless there is a jury full of Jim Crow sympathizers, that is. But based on the facts? No. You're dead wrong.

In the death of a cohort justifiably shot by police or anyone else....

Which is why its called a felony murder rule.

The assault at the store would be a misdemeanor, since brown never punched the shopkeeper, or caused major injury.

Assaulting a cop would be a felony, but Johnson simply being with brown doesnt mean johnson would be charged with felony murder rule, unless they planned it out ahead of time.

a little internet is a dangerous thing.

Such bullshit they get special treatment.

Not under our current system of law.

Perhaps in South Africa during apartheid.

I'd like to read more about another case in which a police officer shoots and kills an unarmed person and does not get charged, while the person accompanying the victim during the killing gets charged for felony-murder based on a shoplifting that occurred in an incident completely separate from the killing.

Didn't know about crime. Was not reason for shooting.

he heard the description of the suspect over the radio and asked if the other unit needed his help.

Either when they first said he didn't or when later said he did.

so I suspect the chief was not aware of all the facts when he first spoke.

Lie.

that's also why it is best to wait for the investigation instead of relying on the initial incomplete reports.

during the framing of testimony phase--3 months of contriving and fitting what the prosecutor wanted the GJ to hear. The chief said wilsonthepig "did not know of store incident. They had talked and when the chief said, "did you know he was a suspect in the store robbery"? Wilson answered no.The GJ was a whitewash and that's what you're condoning here. And yes, I am sure you sleep well at night, most....... do. The willful discounters here get no pass. geez

so yes, I do sleep well at night.

It's unlikely that Ferguson PD has anyone with the skills to alter the tapes without at least the FBI noticing the alterations.

says he stopped them for jaywalking

so he has a history

Darren Wilson’s first job was on a troubled police force disbanded by authorities

FERGUSON, Mo. — The small city of Jennings, Mo., had a police department so troubled, and with so much tension between white officers and black residents, that the city council finally decided to disband it. Everyone in the Jennings police department was fired. New officers were brought in to create a credible department from scratch.

That was three years ago. One of the officers who worked in that department, and lost his job along with everyone else, was a young man named Darren Wilson.

Some of the Jennings officers reapplied for their jobs, but Wilson got a job in the police department in the nearby city of Ferguson.

Interesting belzabubba333. Thank you.

and wilson took his sorry racist ass to ferguson where he got to act out on his racism

I'm sorry, my bad.

Dorian Johnson could be charged with Michael Brown's death?

This ought to be internet-fantastic!

I also await the other cases. Not holding my breath.

Have a good day 1StrongBlackMan.

Wilson was stopping them as suspects in the robbery, or if Johnson participated in any way with Brown's battery/resisting arrest he could be charged.

even if Wilson had stopped them as suspects in the SHOPLIFTING, that magically morphed into strong-arm robbery, there is no basis for the application of the felony-murder rule.

And, as to your second example ... you are entering facts not in evidence.

you're not even informed and are just manipulating people to get a rise. Dorian Johnson's interview clearly tells how he did not participate in the robbery, which actually looked like a petty theft at that.

"Dorian Johnson could be charged with Brown's death..." This is how little "you people" now have to work with that these are all the statements you can come up with. Pathetic, but very obvious.

Its debatable if there was even a theft. Stop peddling tjay right wing meme.

has been lying from the get-go. But as always, Oktober, you're here to defend the murdering cop.

He also in his testimony described running home and vomiting the whole way home, after seeing Michael Brown shot down in cold blood.

right from the start.

I didn't see or hear any of that from Wilson or the Ferguson and St. Louis authorities. They've been lying and attacking Michael Brown from the start, beginning with the big fat lie about releasing that convenience store video to the public because "they were bombarded with requests" from the media. That was pure horse manure. They had immediately initiated an offensive that was geared toward a blatant and unapologetic publicity stunt in order to demonize the dead Black teen so that they could protect their murderous and cowardly police officer.

the dead black teen.'

I agree with you BlueCaliDem.

The City of Albuquerque is currently under investigation by the Justice Department for numerous police killings of unarmed people. As is Ferguson.

I'd like to see a study of the number of times this has happened. I've seen threads here citing numerous killings by police of unarmed black people. Each one was someone's child.

But beyond that lies another important issue. The statistics on black people in prison.

The USA has a higher percentage of its citizens in prison than any other nation.

I hope that out of the Ferguson protests we begin a nationwide discussion of why that is, and at what cost.

according to Michelle Alexander, an Ohio State University law professor and civil rights activist.

846,000.

THIS is what is involved in the protests. And what I hope comes out of the protests - serious meaningful solutions.

Thank you very much BlueCaliDem. I hope you enjoy a wonderful day. I'm going to read that article and will probably order that book too.

of our police system and have an in-depth look at how police - public servants paid for by us taxpayers, mind you - interact with citizens of the very communities they've sworn an oath to protect and serve. They're supposed to uphold and enforce the law, not be above and beyond it.

You have a wonderful day, too, lovemydog. I just got my new iphone 6 plus - first iphone I've ever owned - and I'm tickled pink by all the great things this giant phone can do! So that's what I'll be doing for most of the day - playing around with my new iphone.

Wilson has much motivation to do so.

and the incentives he had to back up Wilson's story.

Also, the fact that it was a murder, not a question of 'Do these clothes make me look fat?'

You mean the person who has a criminal conviction for lying to the police?

...and I guess the Police said this about Dorian Johnson, who themselves can't be trusted?

In the grand jury. It is in the documents released.

I have to find time to read it. Thanks.

I'd tend to go more with the non-killer.

That's 6 more bullets than any of the 3 autopsies found.

(Why are people just making asspulls in this case?)

they weren't intended for his target.

what are you talking about?

unlike Wilson's and the FPD. Their story is like musical chairs, changing as more information came out of the investigation. Hell, Wilson was inconsistent during his grand jury testimony.

Also, Wilson drove himself back to the precinct so he could wash blood from his hands, oh, and he checked his own weapon (that was never tested for prints) into evidence.

I'm getting tired of people acting as though everything Wilson said has to be the truth yet, the second eyewitness at the scene has to be lying about what went on. The investigation was mismanaged from the very beginning so we'll never know based on actual evidence what happened so we're left with eyewitness accounts. I'm going with the eyewitness whose story has never changed (including admitting to LE when being interviewed about the store robbery).

What are their names and what did they testify?

Did not know either participant, and witnessed the full encounter. After the shot in the car, his first thought was that Brown had just murdered a police officer. Corroborates the "Wilson follows, without shooting, then shoots as Michael Brown charges" story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/01/witness-10-proves-darren-wilson-had-a-reasonable-belief-he-needed-to-shoot/

"Officer Wilson remained in his car briefly, and then pursued with his gun drawn — but not firing at Brown (177:15). Eventually Brown stopped."

So the confrontation was over and Wilson had other options to apprehend Brown, but he shot him dead instead.

one iota.

I too am appalled that so many would discount all of the testimony of eyewitness to a murder, merely because he has an arrest record. As though anyone with an arrest record cannot testify truthfully as to a murder. Especially in this case, where if Johnson had any incentive to testify a certain way it's much more likely he would have had great incentive to testify in favor of the police.

You have a wonderful day justiceischeap.

of Brown stealing from the store. Johnson places the box of cigarillo's back on the counter when he realizes what Brown is doing. He did not want to take part in theft. That tells me enough right there plus his being honest when giving his statement to the police, the FBI, the Justice Dept.

Because Johnson didn't want to go back to jail.

As a side note, it bugs me at all the misinformation that has been spread in this case when the facts are pretty readily available.

The truth will come to light. Not as fast as we wish. But it will.

He is black, after all.

Wilson admitted he grabbed Brown's arm....and then proceeded to say he felt afraid of him. Johnson's story seems credible to me, more credible than Wilson's.

Are you saying that because he was Brown's friend?

based on a transcript of his testimony. It is a question of who and what a jury believes. That's how we can decide whether we believe Wilson or Johnson.

Johnson doesn't have much to lose of win in this case. He was present at the theft or shoplifting and would be up for that crime, but he neither contributed to nor was in any way responsible for Wilson's killing of Brown. The parties seem to agree that Johnson had nothing to do with that.

If Johnson had any motivation to lie, it would be to lie in favor of the police because Johnson could be accused of being an accomplice in the theft of the cigarillos.

At trial, Johnson's credibility could be questioned but so could Wilson's.

Wilson has probably had experience testifying in court. Johnson might not withstand cross-examination as well as Wilson. But we would only know in a trial.

There still could be a civil trial so we may find out.

Had this gone to trial that is what a jury would of had to decide. Which witnesses were credible and which were not. And going forward that is what will need to be done in either the Civil Rights case and/or the Civil Case.

and / or civil rights case. Have a good day One_Life_To_Give.

I had read he had just gotten out of trouble...(like out of jail) - but was he on Probation/Parole supervision?

That could be used to influence him.

Dorian is one we haven't heard enough from though.

Because there are so many serious threats to his life

wouldn't it be used to influence him more in a way that supports the police?

Another interesting question is how the prosecutor handled Johnson's testimony in the grand jury proceedings. I recall the prosecutor at the press conference saying eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. One thing the prosecutor did not say is that police testimony regarding the slaying of an unarmed victim is perhaps even more notoriously unreliable. And Wilson was a witness and testified. The prosecutor said nothing about Wilson's testimony being notoriously unreliable. Of course you also have to go to the forensics and see what matches. Personally I think the fact the Wilson didn't have any bruises whatsoever tends

From a purely common sense perspective in terms of what happened I also tend to believe more of Johnson's story than Wilson's completely unbelievable one. And don't forget, it can be argued that Johnson had more incentive to lie in favor of the police than against them. So to me, that gives even more credence to the belief that on the incident at the car and during the killing, Johnson is more credible.

Hope you enjoy a good day hexola.

Saying its "notoriously unreliable" sets the table for them to present their own narrative with cherry picked timeline items/evidence.

And you are also correct - it casts Wilson as a "super-witness" who is more infallible than mere eyewitness.

conference of stressing that eyewitness testimony is 'notoriously unreliable.'

What he did not say at the press conference is that the 'notoriously unreliable' aspect tends to be with people who are far away from the incident.

Johnson was right there while it happened, yet the prosecutor pretty much discredited all of his testimony with that 'notoriously unreliable' stuff.

And yes, that sets the stage for Wilson's contradictory and unbelievable testimony to be disregarded as well. So the prosecutor can cherry-pick what he wanted from it.

Besides the fact we know Wilson lied, one story to the grand jury about his knowledge of the shoplifting event, and yet a completely different story told to the detective right after the murder, his story is as believable as a fairy tale.

We also know that Wilson was fired from his first job, along with everyone else in the department, for racism. Some were rehired. He was not.

And all that aside, he broke protocol. Shooting a suspect from that far away is just one of the very many things he did wrong that day.

A new grand jury with a special prosecutor should be called.

I'm fine with a civil case, and a federal civil rights case as well. But I also believe the case demands a new grand jury with a special prosecutor. There is no statute of limitations for murder. And there is no double jeopardy on a no charge.

Have a great day marym625.

You too, lovemydog!

to even consider that Officer Wilson was "just doing his job". That alone is suspect.

by Ferguson authorities.

Makes me wonder about all the other killings of unarmed black men by police.

In fact it makes me wonder about our entire criminal justice system, where the word of the police officer is always taken as highly credible.

If he was on Probation/Parole - wouldn't that be a violation that might result in going back to jail? Serve his remainder and wait for the charges/trail.

I'd call Dorian an "unwilling participant" - and I didn't mean to imply that he was guilty of shoplifting.

You can also see some actions that support this in the video posted above, and in his testimony cited in the article in my original post.

It would make the Ferguson authorities look even worse than they do now. Though come to think of it, I wouldn't put it past them.

I'd love to know what police said to Johnson off the record. We'll never know for sure.

I think he ducked behind a car.

Did Wilson take him into custody?

I wish someone would make an animation of the encounter!

Trying to visualize the sequence of events is difficult.

Not sure.

Yes, I'd like to see various animations.

I think they will be made.

I think documentaries will be made as well.

Meanwhile, that article I cited does give a very good accounting of both Wilson's testimony and Dorian Johnson's testimony.

After he ran and hid behind the car, Wilson never saw him while walking down the street with his gun. Also, according to Johnson, Wilson never said a word to Michael Brown before shooting him in cold blood.

It is absolutely Manslaughter at the very least. But the police are held to a higher, or is it lower standard.

As it is, we'll just be speculating back and forth forever now.

A special prosecutor should be appointed. And Wilson should be charged.

There is nothing to prevent it. Except intransigence on the part of elected officials.

of Dorian Johnson confirming the store robbery but some of the responses suggested that some used it as an opportunity to paint Brown guilty of everything else which was puzzling since he has a very different account then officer Wilson but while it is possible for someone to the tell but one thing but a lie on something else, but in the absence of hard evidence you'd have to follow that if he told the truth on something that wasn't favorable for Brown, you'd have to follow he likely told the truth on other things.

There is a glaring inconsistency on the first account on the first thing Officer Wilson said.

Johnson claimed he said "Get the F on the sidewalk" while Officer Wilson.. "Hey, can you move to the sidewalk?" though Johnson claims neither said anything

The second statement he heard Brown "Fuck what you have to say". then a "What the fuck are you going to do about it?" and pushed his door in as he was opening it which bounced back on him followed by Wilson saying "Get the F back" where Brown responded pushing the door on him again then punching him which is where he pulled out his gun.

Johnson said neither said anything to the officer and when he opened the door he said it opened unexpectedly and hit him & Brown and bounced back closed on the officer who responded by grabbing Johnson by the neck.

It goes on from there -- http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/11/inconsistencies-what-happened-during-michael-brown-shooting

What is clear is the situation escalated right after the request. It seems Brown's response is more likely with Johnson's account, especially since it was phrased as a question as well as a polite request in the context of plain text (tone could have been rude) but strangely the biggest reason why I'll likely buy he is telling the truth is if Johnson's account is true which would make Johnson's didn't say anything. In any situation "Get the F back" makes the situation more clear.

It quickly escalated so my feelings go with that and I'm going into theories I can't prove but the car door part is very interesting. You can mishear, thought you heard things but it is very hard to feel things that aren't real and he claims the door also hit him. I believe Wilson could be saying he thought he closed the car door on him which led him to lose his cool who already was operating on a short fuse judging by the "Get the F back". Now while he may have misinterpreted the door bouncing back on him, that would also mean he is telling bold face lies in the closing the door on him again and punching him in the face.

Weird how some things were remarkably similar but completely different like grabbing around the neck & a tug-o-war vs punching in the face. I believe the Rashoman effect is in play here and I don't necessary mean the differing accounts of Wilson & Johnson.

There are witnesses that agree with others on certain claims that have different accounts on other claims who have similar same accounts on other claims but different on others.



A useful demonstration of this principle in scientific understanding can be found in Karl G. Heider's work on ethnography.[3] Heider used the term to refer to the effect of the subjectivity of perception on recollection, by which observers of an event are able to produce substantially different but equally plausible accounts of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_effect#cite_note-3

My gut leans with different perceptions of the same events but take the whole hands-up or hands-down dispute, Johnson he was trying to tell him he didn't have a gun which would make sense being fired open but was slowly, didn't have hands up all the way which he was struggled due to the shot in the gut (little details which are the things that strike me as Johnson's account as plausible). You also can't find more agreement among the witnesses as far as the claim goes.

Other claims with agreement is the firing at brown running away & facing him which is baffling that witnesses said no since Wilson even agreed with that claim. it is whether he was charging or not.

There is a key piece of evidence of entry wounds on both sides of of his arm which suggest he was either hit the back of the arm running away or with his arms up facing the officer.

You also have to factor this all took place in under of a minute so the perceptions of the same event being different are understandable. The shock of it all probably affected the recollection, memory isn't so reliable, I find it strange I can forget strange vivid dreams almost immediately after I wake up from them. I also don't remember things I don't pay attention to like when somebody had an epic breakdown over misplacing his keys twice and giving me shit for not paying attention to them and where they went which was somethjing he didn't remember himself and not paying attention to.

that linked to a blog post (masquerading as a news article) that alleged that Brown was never even the person in the store.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5888812

I think there DEFINITELY should have been a trial because there are too many unanswered questions. So many witnesses say that Brown had his hands up, there was the shot in the arm that probably came from the back, the start of the altercation at the car hasn't been well explained, and the sequence of bullets is confusing, among others.

I'm just frustrated by the number of people on DU who can't be bothered to get basic facts right, or who dismiss evidence because it doesn't support their side (and yes, both sides are doing it). I know it's a losing battle.

the parts of Johnson's testimony that work to Wilson's advantage (around the robbery of the store). On those matters, Johnson is impeccable as a witness.

BUT

When it comes to Johnson's testimony about the murder by the killer cop Wilson, why then nothing Johnson says can be believed.

Actually, change that 'fascinating' to 'contemptible.'

Or when they read the thread here at DU about all the other unarmed black people killed by police.

Or when they read any of the numerous articles posted here about why this case is a travesty of justice.

Or when they see people in the legal field explain how the prosecutor railroaded this case in favor of Wilson, in ways that are highly unusual, to get the result that he wanted.

Or when they hear anyone involved with the criminal justice system state adamantly that a prosecutor can get any result he or she wants from a grand jury.

Or when they see the thousands of people protesting not just in the streets, but online as well.

Or when they read the article from the Huffington Post cited in this thread about a new book that says more black men are in prison now than were enslaved in 1840.

Or when they hear the peaceful protesters that we have a come a long way but we still have a long way to go.

I am hoping.

and from his own personal account was frozen... With fear??? Most likely...

But, he is a very credible witness...

I bet Wilson would never follow suit.

But two things are certain. Brown is dead. Wilson killed him.

A trial might have clarified some of the details. Or at least lead to a jury's conclusion about what the details were and how a minor incident escalated into a major one.

We might have learned something about how to improve our law enforcement if there had been a real trial.

From the OJ trial, prosecutors learned to be very careful about the chain of custody of blood samples and other evidence. (We hope they learned it.)

Some of them may also have learned from the OJ trial to be very careful and take their time about figuring out time estimates in criminal cases. Get those minute ducks in a row.

A trial might have lead to change in our police forces. Sad that no trial is happening.

In hospitals, doctors have a process called morbidity and mortality in which they review cases in which a patient died and try to figure out how they can avoid death, what better treatment they can provide, in future cases. The doctors sort of grill themselves and learn from their cases how to improve their practices of medicine. Police officers need to adopt a similar practice.

The Hippocratic Oath. I agree JDPriestly. Police need to learn more from doctors. They are paid for by we the people. And they are supposed to serve and protect we the people.