ADVERTISEMENT

Country appears to be free falling...

You are getting into the right ballpark but still grossly misstating what I said. My criticisms (which still somehow see to dominate your mind even now as you bring it up repeatedly) centered on two basic things: 1. The conduct and press conference by the local prosecutor; and 2) the existence of conflicting evidence about exactly what Brown was doing when Wilson shot him 6-8 times after pursuing him several hundred feet after the initial altercation.

You never seem to understand the point about the prosecutor. He was biased and he conducted an investigation and GJ proceedings like he was defense counsel for Wilson, not an objective public servant. What he said at the PC was absurd. I've read the Q&A of witnesses and he and his staff did everything they could to try to discredit every witness who did not support Wilson's account. He should not have been allowed to run the case. He was in essence an extension of the police department. The process has been changed in Ferguson and he was voted out of office. Similar procedures have been implemented around the country, including in the Floyd case, to bring in state prosecutors when there is a death caused by a LEO. All of that vindicates what I said at the time.

Second, it is an irrefutable statement of fact and reality that there was conflicting evidence about what Brown was doing when Wilson chased him down (that is not disputed) and shot an already wounded and bleeding 290 pound man trying to flee on foot 6-8 times. Some said he was charging; some said kneeling; some said stumbling forward; some said an aggressive posture; some said a submissive posture as if trying to surrender. The DOJ report has an excellent summary of the evidence here--https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/04/us/doj-report-on-shooting-of-michael-brown.html. It says credible witnesses gave different accounts of how Brown was moving and what he was doing with his hands. It is an absolutely correct statement of black letter law that such key fact disputes are normally resolved by triers of fact, not by biased investigators.

Brown had no weapon. Wilson, who is 6'4/210, had a gun drawn on him. Did Wilson attempt to de-escalate here? No. Could he have followed at a safe distance and waited for backup that arrived seconds later rather than initiating a second (and deadly) confrontation? Of course he could have. I guarantee you that some prosecutors would have pushed for an indictment here on some crime less than murder and that a reasonable jury could have convicted him. If the same incident happened today, with an independent prosecutor, that could absolutely happen and your usual childish hyperbole just reveals your ignorance.

What I did not say or think: that there was clear evidence that Brown was kneeling, or had his hands up in the air, or said don't shoot; that Wilson should have been charged with any particular offense or that he would have been convicted.

Why don't you save this somewhere so next time you obsess on this you can c/p it and be accurate instead of continuously mangling my position?
Your explanation keeps evolving, it is understandable as your original stance is indefensible.

The bullshit about the press conference and the prosecutor is what is absurd. Once all the facts were known, there is no point in pretending he Might be guilty.

And you still manage to misrepresent what the DOJ found, and which witnesses were "credible". The entire point of the DOJ report was that THERE WERE NO, ZERO, "CREDIBLE" WITNESSES who implicated Wilson, almost all exculpated him. If you claim or think you saw something happen that is contradictory to all the physical evidence, you are not "credible". That's called "Science". You may be the only person in the country still hanging on to the idea it isn't clear what happened.

Keep evolving your stance. It sounds incrementally better each time you do, but as of today you are still out of your damn mind
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Archie
Your explanation keeps evolving, it is understandable as your original stance is indefensible.

The bullshit about the press conference and the prosecutor is what is absurd. Once all the facts were known, there is no point in pretending he Might be guilty.

And you still manage to misrepresent what the DOJ found, and which witnesses were "credible". The entire point of the DOJ report was that THERE WERE NO, ZERO, "CREDIBLE" WITNESSES who didn't exculpate Wilson. If you claim or think you saw something happen that is contradictory to all the physical evidence, you are not "credible". That's called "Science". You may be the only person in the country still hanging on to the idea it isn't clear what happened.

Keep evolving your stance. It sounds incrementally better each time you do, but as of today you are still out of your damn mind
You are full of shit and you dig deeper and deeper because you don't know what you are talking about. It's unequivocally clear that's it not "clear what happened." That's exactly what the report details. There are many aspects of Wilson's version that are not corroborated by any witness or forensic evidence. That's not my opinion--that's what the report says. Why is this so hard for you? I will stand on exactly what I just wrote today, which is entirely consistent with what I've always said. Read the facts in the DOJ report your uninformed, belligerent dickhead,
 
You are full of shit and you dig deeper and deeper because you don't know what you are talking about. I will stand on exactly what I just wrote today, which is entirely consistent with what I've always said. Read the facts in the DOJ report your uninformed, belligerent dickhead,
I've quoted the report to you, C&Ped it, this is all in the bowels of the AIDS board. The report doesn't in any way bolster any excuse for a prosecution. As I have told you numerous times, it is disgraceful that a supposed lawyer doesn't understand that a prosecutor has an ethical duty to decline prosecution in this situation. It is the opposite of justice to proceed with a case he knows the defendant is not guilty and knows will never result in a conviction




From the Summary

Based on this investigation, the Department has concluded that Darren Wilson’s actions do not constitute prosecutable violations under the applicable federal criminal civil rights statute, 18 U.S.C. § 242, which prohibits uses of deadly force that are “objectively unreasonable,” as defined by the United States Supreme Court. The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not support the conclusion that Wilson’s uses of deadly force were “objectively unreasonable” under the Supreme Court’s definition. Accordingly, under the governing federal law and relevant standards set forth in the USAM, it is not appropriate to present this matter to a federal grand jury for indictment, and it should therefore be closed without prosecution.


From page 36
ii. Witnesses Consistent with Prior Statements, Physical Evidence, and Other Witnesses Who Inculpate Wilson
There are no witnesses who fall under this category.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau...doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf


THERE ARE NO, ZERO,"CREDIBLE" WITNESSES WHO SAID ANYTHING REMOTELY JUSTIFYING A PROSECUTION. EVERYONE CAN READ IT. YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT AND HAVE REMANIED FULL OF SHIT THRUOUT. YOU CANT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT IS WRITTEN IN BLACK AND WHITE IN THE REPORT

 
Last edited:
I've quoted the report to you, C&Ped it, this is all in the bowels of the AIDS board. The report doesn't in any way bolster any excuse for a prosecution. As I have told you numerous times, it is disgraceful that a supposed lawyer doesn't understand that a prosecutor has an ethical duty to decline prosecution in this situation. It is the opposite of justice to proceed with a case he knows the defendant is not guilty and knows will never result in a conviction




From the Summary

Based on this investigation, the Department has concluded that Darren Wilson’s actions do not constitute prosecutable violations under the applicable federal criminal civil rights statute, 18 U.S.C. § 242, which prohibits uses of deadly force that are “objectively unreasonable,” as defined by the United States Supreme Court. The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not support the conclusion that Wilson’s uses of deadly force were “objectively unreasonable” under the Supreme Court’s definition. Accordingly, under the governing federal law and relevant standards set forth in the USAM, it is not appropriate to present this matter to a federal grand jury for indictment, and it should therefore be closed without prosecution.


From page 36
ii. Witnesses Consistent with Prior Statements, Physical Evidence, and Other Witnesses Who Inculpate Wilson
There are no witnesses who fall under this category.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau...doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf


THERE ARE NO, ZERO,"CREDIBLE" WITNESSES WHO SAID ANYTHING REMOTELY JUSTIFYING A PROSECUTION. EVERYONE CAN READ IT. YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT AND HAVE REMANIED FULL OF SHIT THRUOUT. YOU CANT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT IS WRITTEN IN BLACK AND WHITE IN THE REPORT
Jesus Christ you don't know when to stop trying to play lawyer and make a complete fool of yourself. There are loads of articles out there written by criminal law experts criticizing how the prosecutor handled the case. You could read them and learn a lot if your weren't such an ignorant, lazy blowhard. The prosecutor was thrown out. The Ferguson system was found guilty of extreme racial bias and reformed. Outside prosecutors now handle such cases. Surely even a complete dolt like yourself can connect some of these rather obvious dots.

You are citing parts of the report dealing with the federal civil rights criminal standard, which has absolutely nothing to do with anything I am saying you idiot. I cited the DOJ report for the factual summary. Speaking of which, here is a direct quote from page 12 of the report, directly pertinent to what I have been trying (for some reason) to explain to a legal illiterate, and it 100% supports exactly what I am saying and have been saying to your dimwitted ass for years now:

While credible witnesses gave varying accounts of exactly what Brown was doing with his hands as he moved toward Wilson –
i.e., balling them, holding them out, or pulling up his pants up – and varying accounts of how he was moving –i.e., “charging,” moving in “slow motion,” or “running” – they all establish that Brown was moving toward Wilson when Wilson shot him. Although some witnesses state that Brown held his hands up at shoulder level with his palms facing outward for a brief moment, these same witnesses describe Brown then dropping his hands and “charging” at Wilson.

You don't even know what parts of the DOJ report are relevant to what I'm saying or what any of it means you shit for brains wannabe. Please immediately GFY

 
You are full of shit and you dig deeper and deeper because you don't know what you are talking about. It's unequivocally clear that's it not "clear what happened." That's exactly what the report details. There are many aspects of Wilson's version that are not corroborated by any witness or forensic evidence. That's not my opinion--that's what the report says. Why is this so hard for you? I will stand on exactly what I just wrote today, which is entirely consistent with what I've always said. Read the facts in the DOJ report your uninformed, belligerent dickhead,
Still waiting on any quote from the report to bolster your characterization. I don't mind linking or C&Ping. Why don't you? Who were these witnesses?

And you still gloss over the fact that witness testimony is not nearly as valuable or reliable as physical evidence, which, by the way, all blacks Wilson's account as well.
 
Still waiting on any quote from the report to bolster your characterization. I don't mind linking or C&Ping. Why don't you? Who were these witnesses?
Look up dipshit. I just quoted it. It says exactly what I've been telling you for several years. Wilson's whole exoneration by the prosecutor depended on the claim he feared for his life at the moment he shot Brown. But the evidence was conflicting as to what Brown was doing at that moment. If he was stumbling forward, with his hands down, as some of the witnesses said, then Wilson could not have reasonably feared for his life and he certainly had alternatives to avoid shooting Brown 10 times, like staying in his SUV until Brown was surrounded by backup seconds away. This is not complicated. If you think a reasonable jury couldn't have agreed with what I just said then you don't know a damn thing about juries or jury trials. Oh wait...of course you don't.
 
Look up dipshit. I just quoted it. It says exactly what I've been telling you for several years. Wilson's whole exoneration by the prosecutor depended on the claim he feared for his life at the moment he shot Brown. But the evidence was conflicting as to what Brown was doing at that moment. If he was stumbling forward, with his hands down, as some of the witnesses said, then Wilson could not have reasonably feared for his life and he certainly had alternatives to avoid shooting Brown 10 times, like staying in his SUV until Brown was surrounded by backup seconds away. This is not complicated. If you think a reasonable jury couldn't have agreed with what I just said then you don't know a damn thing about juries or jury trials. Oh wait...of course you don't.
No, the evidence is not conflicting IT ALL BACKS WILSON.

As do Witnesses 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 113, and 134.

There are no, zero, credible witnesses who implicate Wilson in anything wrong. And no physical evidence.

There are witnesses who didn't see enough to be helpful either way from a legal standpoint, and witnesses who lied, changed their stories, or told a story incompatible with the physical evidence and any other witnesses.

Shall we go thru each individual witness statement? Or are you going to tell us which witness bolsters your characterization. Because the Obama/Holder DOJ were in fact quite clear on this. Pick a witness number, any one between 101 and 134, and let's pore over their statement, and what the DOJ says about it....

This has been quite the useful exercise, just as a reminder as to what you actually believe and your lawyering skills, so @Jackson68, @Archie, and even your squad like @00aubie dont get confused ever again about who and what you are
 
Last edited:
No, the evidence is not conflicting IT ALL BACKS WILSON.

As do Witnesses 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 113, and 134.

There are no, zero, credible witnesses who implicate Wilson in anything wrong. And no physical evidence.

There are witnesses who didn't see enough to be helpful either way from a legal standpoint, and witnesses who lied, changed their stories, or told a story incompatible with the physical evidence and any other witnesses.

Shall we go thru each individual witness statement? Or are you going to tell us which witness bolsters your characterization. Because the Obama/Holder DOJ were in fact quite clear on this
You are giving me your own subjective opinion...man. I just quoted the report saying credible witnesses said different things on the crucial facts relevant to Wilson's defense. I can't make you understand it. You don't seem to understand you are chasing your tail and proving my point by inviting me to argue witness by witness about the facts. If we did so, you would only succeed in proving that we disagree about the facts based on disparate accounts--which is my f'ing point to begin with.
 
WTF? Are you reading in a different language? There is no way to interpret what I wrote as you have in your post. What exactly are you trying to take issue with?
Back to your disingenuous ways already I see. Keep working at it. I’ll keep you in my thoughts and prayers.
 
Jesus Christ you don't know when to stop trying to play lawyer and make a complete fool of yourself. There are loads of articles out there written by criminal law experts criticizing how the prosecutor handled the case. You could read them and learn a lot if your weren't such an ignorant, lazy blowhard. The prosecutor was thrown out. The Ferguson system was found guilty of extreme racial bias and reformed. Outside prosecutors now handle such cases. Surely even a complete dolt like yourself can connect some of these rather obvious dots.

You are citing parts of the report dealing with the federal civil rights criminal standard, which has absolutely nothing to do with anything I am saying you idiot. I cited the DOJ report for the factual summary. Speaking of which, here is a direct quote from page 12 of the report, directly pertinent to what I have been trying (for some reason) to explain to a legal illiterate, and it 100% supports exactly what I am saying and have been saying to your dimwitted ass for years now:

While credible witnesses gave varying accounts of exactly what Brown was doing with his hands as he moved toward Wilson –
i.e., balling them, holding them out, or pulling up his pants up – and varying accounts of how he was moving –i.e., “charging,” moving in “slow motion,” or “running” – they all establish that Brown was moving toward Wilson when Wilson shot him. Although some witnesses state that Brown held his hands up at shoulder level with his palms facing outward for a brief moment, these same witnesses describe Brown then dropping his hands and “charging” at Wilson.

You don't even know what parts of the DOJ report are relevant to what I'm saying or what any of it means you shit for brains wannabe. Please immediately GFY
I'm the legal illiterate.

You don't even understand that your summary of witness accounts EXCULPATES WILSON. Brown was in fact charging him, and did not have his hands up when shot. Even if you put your hands up briefly, which it was never established he did, that is not some sort of magical incantation that then allows you to resume your attack undefended. It would be but a brief "timeout", with time back in once you dropped them and charged.

The more we argue, the more amusing this becomes, and definitely the better this is for me. So, please, I await your next evolving explanation.

Cite any witnes by number, and let's go over their testimony.
 
Last edited:
You are giving me your own subjective opinion...man. I just quoted the report saying credible witnesses said different things on the crucial facts relevant to Wilson's defense. I can't make you understand it. You don't seem to understand you are chasing your tail and proving my point by inviting me to argue witness by witness about the facts. If we did so, you would only succeed in proving that we disagree about the facts based on disparate accounts--which is my f'ing point to begin with.
I'm giving you the conclusions of the DOJ report, dipshit.
Credible Witnesses said different things on minor irrelevant details, like whether his fists were balled or his palms were open when he was 30 feet away. Whether his fists were balled is irrelevant to what happens next, and any idiot can figure that out without the report telling them.

You want to have a trial to determine whether Brown balled his fists before he hiked his pants before he charged Wilson. That is the sum total of your position now.

At some point, I'm just going to start feeling sorry for you. But we are not at that point yet.

What type of "law" do you "practice"?
 
I'm the legal illiterate.

You don't even understand that your summary of witness accounts EXCULPATES WILSON. Brown was in fact charging him, and did not have his hands up when shot. Even if you put your hands up briefly, which it was never established he did, that is not some sort of magical incantation that then allows you to resume your attack I pun defended. It would be but a brief "timeout", with time back in once you dropped them and charged.

The more we argue, the more amusing this becomes, and definitely the better this is for me. So, please, I await your next evolving explanation.

Cite any witnes by number, and let's go over their testimony.
I just provided you a report that says the evidence was conflicting as to whether Brown was "charging" when he was shot. Again, I can't make you understand things. Jesus. Just admit you have a strongly held, subjective opinion about the facts and stop acting like there is some definitive evidence here. The DOJ report says exactly what I am saying and you are hilariously trying to convince me to believe you instead of my own eyes. Trump would be proud of your alternative reality approach here...but I'm not.
 
I just provided you a report that says the evidence was conflicting as to whether Brown was "charging" when he was shot. Again, I can't make you understand things. Jesus. Just admit you have a strongly held, subjective opinion about the facts and stop acting like there is some definitive evidence here. The DOJ report says exactly what I am saying and you are hilariously trying to convince me to believe you instead of my own eyes. Trump would be proud of your alternative reality approach here...but I'm not.
Nope, you didn't.

I'm not sure if you can read or not at this point.
Charged, sprinted, staggered, skipped, sasheed, it doesn't matter. He was moving on Wilson, yet again, after attacking him in his car and grabbing his gun. He was not shot running away, he was not shot surrendering. Wilson told a story that never changed and was backed by all the evidence. 8 witnesses backed him up. Some other people didn't see enough of the crucial parts, and some other people lied about what they saw and tried to put it on Wilson. No one who saw anything remotely in the realm of reality had any testimony that would convict Wilson of anything

LOL at me having the strongly held opinion. That is precious. There isn't a prosecutor in the entire country that would try this case. There has to be some sort of word to fully encapsulate the depths of your delusion, but I can't think of one.
 
According to Witness 102, he saw Brown standing on the driver’s side of the SUV, bent over with his body through the driver’s window from the waist up. Witness 102 explained that Brown was “wrestling” through the window, but he was unable to see what Wilson was doing. After a few seconds, Witness 102 heard a gunshot. Immediately, Brown took off running in the opposite direction from where Witness 102 was standing. Witness 102 heard something metallic hit the ground. Witness 102 thought that he had just witnessed the murder of a police officer because a few seconds passed before Wilson emerged from the SUV. Wilson then chased Brown with his gun drawn, but not pointed at Brown, until Brown abruptly turned around at a nearby driveway. Witness 102 explained that it made no sense to him why Brown turned around. Brown did not get on the ground or put his hands up in surrender. In fact, Witness 102 told investigators that he knew “for sure that [Brown’s] hands were not above his head.” Rather, Brown made some type of movement similar to pulling his pants up or a shoulder shrug, and then “charged” at Wilson. It was only then that Wilson fired five or six shots at Brown. Brown paused and appeared to flinch, and Wilson stopped firing. However, Brown charged at Wilson again, and again Wilson fired about three or four rounds until Brown finally collapsed on the ground. Witness 102 was in disbelief that Wilson seemingly kept missing because Brown kept advancing forward. Witness 102 described Brown as a “threat,” moving at a “full charge.” Witness 102 stated that Wilson only fired shots when Brown was coming toward Wilson. It appeared to Witness 102 that Wilson’s life was in jeopardy. Witness 102 was unable to hear whether Brown or Wilson said anything.


When Witness 103 stopped his truck on Canfield Drive, although he did not see what led up to it, he saw Brown punching Wilson at least three times in the facial area, through the open driver’s window of the SUV. Witness 103 described Wilson and Brown as having hold of each other’s shirts, but Brown was “getting in a couple of blows.” Wilson was leaning back toward the passenger seat with his forearm up, in an effort to block the blows. Then Witness 103 heard a gunshot and Brown took off running. Wilson exited the SUV, appeared to be using his shoulder microphone to call into his radio, and chased Brown with his gun held low.
Witness 103 explained that Brown came to a stop near a car, put his hand down on the car, and turned around to face Wilson. Brown’s hands were then down at his sides. Witness 103 did not see Brown’s hands up. Wanting to leave, Witness 103 began to turn his car around in the opposite direction that Brown had been running when he heard additional shots. Witness 103 turned to his right, and saw Brown “moving fast” toward Wilson. Witness 103 then drove away.
Witness 103 had a passenger in his truck. Although Witness 103 tried to facilitate contact between federal and state authorities and the passenger, the passenger refused to identify himself or provide any information.
When Witness 103 was initially subpoenaed to testify before the county grand jury, he expressed even more reluctance than he did during his investigative interview, this time alleging memory loss. However, he ultimately testified consistently with his original account, with the physical and forensic evidence, and with other credible witness accounts. Therefore, if called as a defense witness in a federal prosecution of Darren Wilson, Witness 103 would be subject to limited impeachment for his two felony convictions, including a theft conviction, but his apparent antipathy toward law enforcement would bolster testimony that corroborates Wilson.

Accordingly, after a thorough review of all the evidence, federal prosecutors determined his account to be credible, and likewise determined that a jury appropriately would credit his potential testimony.


Witness 104 was in a minivan that had been traveling in the opposite direction of Wilson, and came to a halt in front of Wilson’s SUV, and somewhat behind, yet adjacent to Witness 103’s blue pickup truck. Witness 104 was on the same side of the SUV as Witness 102 and Witness 103. She was seated in the middle row behind the driver’s seat of the minivan, leaning over toward the center, with a direct view of Brown running away from Wilson, a frontal view of Brown coming back toward Wilson, and the shooting thereafter. Witness 104 is the adult daughter of the two witnesses in the driver and passenger front seats, Witness 105 and Witness 106, respectively. She is the sister of Witness 107, who was seated in the middle row passenger seat to her right.
According to Witness 104, she was leaning over, talking to her sister, Witness 107, when she heard two gunshots. She looked out the front window and saw Brown at the driver’s window of Wilson’s SUV. Witness 104 knew that Brown’s arms were inside the SUV, but she could not see what Brown and Wilson were doing because Brown’s body was blocking her view. Witness 104 saw Brown run from the SUV, followed by Wilson, who “hopped” out of the SUV and ran after him while yelling “stop, stop, stop.” Wilson did not fire his gun as Brown ran from him. Brown then turned around and “for a second” began to raise his hands as though he may have considered surrendering, but then quickly “balled up in fists” in a running position and “charged” at Wilson. Witness 104 described it as a “tackle run,” explaining that Brown “wasn’t going to stop.” Wilson fired his gun only as Brown charged at him, backing up as Brown came toward him. Witness 104 explained that there were three separate volleys of shots. Each time, Brown ran toward Wilson, Wilson fired, Brown paused, Wilson stopped firing, and then Brown charged again. The pattern continued until Brown fell to the ground, “smashing” his face upon impact. Wilson did not fire while Brown momentarily had his hands up. Witness 104 explained that it took some time for Wilson to fire, adding that she “would have fired sooner.” Wilson did not go near Brown’s body after Brown fell to his death.
Witness 104 explained that she first saw Brown’s friend, Witness 101, when he took off running as soon as the first two shots were fired. She never saw him again.
All three of Witness 104’s statements were consistent with each other, consistent with the physical and forensic evidence, and consistent with other credible witness accounts. Witness 104 does not have a criminal history. Therefore, if called as a defense witness in a prosecution of Darren Wilson, this witness’s account would not be vulnerable to meaningful cross– examination and would not be subject to impeachment due to bias or inconsistencies in prior statements. Accordingly, after a thorough review of all the evidence, federal prosecutors


I'm looking for the crucial discrepancies amongst the credible eyewitness accounts that necessitate a trial. Can you help me and point them out? I'm a legal illiterate after all
 
Last edited:
Nope, you didn't.

I'm not sure if you can read or not at this point.
Charged, sprinted, staggered, skipped, sasheed, it doesn't matter. He was moving on Wilson, yet again, after attacking him in his car and grabbing his gun. He was not shot running away, he was not shot surrendering. Wilson told a story that never changed and was backed by all the evidence. 8 witnesses backed him up. Some other people didn't see enough of the crucial parts, and some other people lied about what they saw and tried to put it on Wilson. No one who saw anything remotely in the realm of reality had any testimony that would convict Wilson of anything

LOL at me having the strongly held opinion. That is precious. There isn't a prosecutor in the entire country that would try this case. There has to be some sort of word to fully encapsulate the depths of your delusion, but I can't think of one.
Why do you refuse to read the report and evidence and keep making up stuff to suit your opinion? Brown did run away from Wilson--200-250 feet from the SUV and Wilson chased him and shot him. Brown was shot in the arms and forensics could not determine the direction of angle of the shots. No witness used the verbs you are using. You are making it up from whole cloth. Why? You are completely delusional about this whole thing and I have no idea why you are so invested in it, now, but I can't help you. Have a nice day, or, alternatively, GfY. I'm fine with either.
 
Witness 105 is a 50-year-old black female. She gave two statements. SLCPD detectives interviewed her, and federal prosecutors explained the nature of the two parallel criminal investigations to Witness 105 prior to her testimony before the county grand jury. Witness 105 was driving a minivan in which Witness 104, her daughter, was seated behind the driver’s seat in the middle row. Her husband, Witness 106, was next to her in the front passenger seat, and her other daughter, Witness 107, was seated behind her husband and next to Witness 104. Witness 105 had been traveling east on Canfield Drive, when she stopped in front of Wilson’s vehicle with a view of the driver’s side of his vehicle. Her view was also of the back of Brown as he first ran away, and then the front of Brown as he turned around and came back toward Wilson.
According to Witness 105, Wilson was driving a car, not an SUV, and a gunshot drew her attention to the vehicle. She noticed Brown’s hands on Wilson’s “car.” Brown then ran eastbound and Wilson chased after him, gun in hand but held low. Witness 105 explained that Brown put his hands up “for a brief moment,” and then turned around and made a shuffling movement. Wilson told Brown to “get down,” but Brown did not comply. Instead, Brown put his hands down “in a running position.” Witness 105 could not tell whether Brown was “charging” at Wilson or whether his plan was to run past Wilson, but either way, Brown was running toward Wilson. According to Witness 105, Wilson only shot at Brown when Brown was moving toward him. She could not see Brown’s hands as he was running, but saw him reaching down as he began to fall to the ground. Witness 105 saw Wilson shoot Brown in the face before he began to stumble. Once Brown was on the ground, it appeared to Witness 105 that Wilson was calling out on the radio using his shoulder microphone.
When Witness 105 contacted SLCPD detectives, she was reluctant to identify herself and ultimately met with them in a library parking lot. She explained that she was coming forward because in speaking with her neighbors, she realized that what they believed had happened was inconsistent with what actually happened. She further explained that that she had not been paying attention to media accounts, and had been unaware of the inaccuracies being reported.

According to Witness 106, although his wife saw Wilson emerge from what she remembered was a police car, he first saw Wilson and Brown when they were in the street. It initially looked to Witness 106 like Brown had a gun and there was a firefight happening, although he has since realized that not to be the case. Regardless, Witness 106’s overall impression was that he witnessed a police officer “taking down a gunman in a residential neighborhood before anyone else got hurt.” It was for that reason that Witness 106 agreed to speak with SLCPD detectives. He otherwise does not “have any love” for law enforcement, having served 18 years in prison. Witness 106 also testified before the county grand jury.
Witness 106 explained that he first saw Brown as he ran from Wilson. Wilson fired one shot which seemed to hit Brown in the leg because Brown appeared to stagger. Brown’s arms then “briefly flung” out and he turned around to face Wilson. Witness 106 then explained that even though the neighborhood had been talking about Brown having his “hands up,” Brown “did not have his hands up.” Brown’s arms were down at his sides, such that Witness 106 could not even see Brown’s hands. Witness 106’s vantage point was over Wilson’s shoulder. Witness 106 saw Brown walk toward Wilson and thought that Brown was about to shoot Wilson, as Wilson shot Brown until he fell to his death. Wilson was about six to 10 feet from Brown when he fired the final shots at Brown.
Witness 106’s account is inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence and other credible witness accounts

Here are two witnesses with slightly differing accounts. One saw the entire episode and her account was consistent with the forensic evidence. The other was initially mistaken about what was happening, and is a cop-hating ex con, and got lots of details wrong according to forensics and other eyewitnesses. But his story only clears Wilson. Do we need to have a trial so that the black wife can argue with her white ex con husband about details that are immaterial to supporting a murder charge?
 
Last edited:
Why do you refuse to read the report and evidence and keep making up stuff to suit your opinion? Brown did run away from Wilson--200-250 feet from the SUV and Wilson chased him and shot him. Brown was shot in the arms and forensics could not determine the direction of angle of the shots. No witness used the verbs you are using. You are making it up from whole cloth. Why? You are completely delusional about this whole thing and I have no idea why you are so invested in it, now, but I can't help you. Have a nice day, or, alternatively, GfY. I'm fine with either.
Everything you just typed is an easily disproven mischaracterization.

Why? What do you get out of this? Are you just gaslighting yourself at this point?
 
Last edited:
Witness 108 is a 74-year-old black male who claimed to have witnessed the shooting, stated that it was justified, but repeatedly refused to give formal statements to law enforcement for fear of reprisal should the Canfield Drive neighborhood find out that his account corroborated Wilson. He was served with a county grand jury subpoena and refused to appear.
During the initial canvass of the crime scene on August 9, 2014, in the hours after the shooting, SLCPD detectives approached Witness 108, who was sitting in his car on Canfield Drive. They asked if he witnessed what happened. Witness 108 refused to identify himself or give details, but told detectives that the police officer was “in the right” and “did what he had to do,” and the statements made by people in the apartment complex were inaccurate. Both state and federal investigators later attempted to locate and interview Witness 108, who repeatedly expressed fear in coming forward. During the investigators’ attempts to find Witness 108, another individual reported that two days after the shooting, Witness 108 confided in her that he “would have ****ing shot that boy, too.” In saying so, Witness 108 mimicked an aggressive stance with his hands out in front of him, as though he was about to charge. SLCPD detectives finally tracked down Witness 108 at a local repair shop, where he reluctantly explained that Wilson told Brown to “stop” or “get down” at least ten times, but instead Brown “charged” at Wilson. Witness 108 told detectives that there were other witnesses on Canfield Drive who witnessed the same thing. An SLCPD detective and federal prosecutor again tracked down Witness 108 in hopes of obtaining a more formal statement. However, Witness 108 refused to provide additional details to either county or federal authorities, citing community sentiment to support a “hands up” surrender narrative as his reason to remain silent. He explained that he would rather go to jail than testify before the county grand jury.
Witness 108 has no criminal history. Witness 108’s accounts, although quite general, are clearly exculpatory as to Wilson and consistent with other credible evidence. His reluctance to testify in opposition to community sentiment lends further credence to his account.


Witness 109 is a 53 year-old black male. Like Witness 108, Witness 109 claimed to have witnessed the shooting, stated that it was justified, and repeatedly refused to give formal statements to law enforcement for fear of reprisal should the Canfield Drive neighborhood find out that his account corroborated Wilson. He was served with a county grand jury subpoena and refused to appear. Likewise, Witness 109 repeatedly refused to formally meet with SLCPD detectives, FBI agents, or federal and county prosecutors.
Law enforcement identified Witness 109 through a phone call that he made to the SLCPD information line at 5:19 p.m. on the day of the shooting. During that six-minute recorded call, the operator transferred Witness 109 to an SLCPD detective, and Witness 109 provided the following information, repeatedly refusing to meet with detectives in person. Witness 109 stated that he did not want his phone number traced, and would deny everything if it was traced. Witness 109 stated that he did not know Brown or his friend, Witness 101. However, he was calling because Witness 101, whom he described as the “guy with the dreads,” lied on national television. Witness 109 described Brown and Witness 101 walking on the center line of the
street when the officer asked them to get out of street. Brown responded something to the effect of, “**** the police.” According to Witness 109, Wilson got out of his vehicle and Brown, the “young guy that died,” hit him in the face. Witness 109 explained that Wilson reached for what appeared to be a taser but dropped it, and then grabbed a gun. Witness 109 explained that Brown reached for Wilson’s gun. Although Witness 109’s description was somewhat disjointed, he also stated that at first Brown ran away from Wilson, but then kept coming toward Wilson. Wilson told Brown to stop and lie down, but Brown failed to comply. Witness 109 said that Wilson fired in self-defense, explaining that Wilson did not shoot to kill at first, but “he unloaded on him when [Brown] wouldn’t stop.” Witness 109 said that “a lot of people saw that it was justified,” ending the call by stating, “I know police get a bad rap, but they’re here to protect us.”
Federal and county prosecutors and investigators tried to no avail to interview Witness 109. True to his word on that initial phone call, he would not discuss what he saw. He did, however, acknowledge that he placed a call to the SLCPD information line.
Witness 109 does have a criminal history that would be admissible in federal court. Witness 109 has a misdemeanor theft conviction from 1985 and a felony arrest, both of which likely would be inadmissible in federal court for impeachment purposes. Witness 109’s account is exculpatory as to Wilson and although Witness 109 may be subject to limited impeachment, the majority of his description is consistent with the physical and forensic evidence, and consistent with other credible witness accounts. Community sentiment and therefore his reluctance to testify on behalf of Wilson would likely bolster his account.


Witness 113 is a 31-year-old black female. She was interviewed one time by FBI agents during their canvass on August 16, 2014, and gave an account that generally corroborated Wilson, but only after she was confronted with untruthful statements she initially made in an effort to avoid neighborhood backlash. When local authorities tried to serve Witness 113 with a subpoena to testify before the county grand jury, she blockaded her door with a couch to avoid service.
Witness 113 was on her brother’s balcony, located opposite and to the left of the aforementioned minivan, when she first saw Brown walking in the street. Contrary to other witness accounts, Witness 113 saw what she believed to be three black males walking in the street, and two police vehicles present, calling into question whether she actually witnessed the beginning of the incident. She explained that one of the police officers told Brown and his friends to go on the sidewalk, and then subsequently called Brown over to his vehicle, where a struggle occurred.
Witness 113 then gave an account that was contrary to physical evidence, internally inconsistent, and admittedly untrue. She first explained that Brown ran east, away from Wilson, as Wilson shot at him. However, she then explained that she watched as Brown ran west past Wilson, who shot Brown right next to the SUV. Witness 113 stated that Wilson fired shots into Brown’s back as he lay flat on his stomach on the ground. When the FBI told Witness 113 that the autopsy results and other evidence were inconsistent with her account, she admitted that she lied. She explained to the FBI that, “You’ve gotta live the life to know it,” and stated that she feared offering an account contrary to the narrative reported by the media that Brown held his hands up in surrender.
Witness 113 then admitted that she saw Brown running toward Wilson, prompting Wilson to yell, “Freeze.” Brown failed to stop and Wilson began shooting Brown. Witness 113 told the FBI that it appeared to her that Wilson’s life was in danger. She explained there was a pause in the shots before the firing resumed, but Witness 113 had ducked down for cover and did not see anything after the first volley of shots.
Witness 113 was with her brother and boyfriend when the shooting occurred. Witness 113 refused to provide their contact information, and they both repeatedly evaded law enforcement’s attempts to meet with them.
Witness 113 has no criminal history that would be admissible in federal court. Witness 113 has past arrests but no convictions, which likely would be inadmissible in federal court. In a federal prosecution, if served and called to testify on behalf of Wilson, federal prosecutors could subject Witness 113 to cross-examination due to her admittedly untruthful statements during the first part of her interview with the FBI. However, her reasons for being untruthful, coupled with the fact that she immediately changed course when her statements were challenged, give her account reliability. Accordingly, prosecutors did not discount her narrative in its entirety, but rather in examining all of the evidence, considered this witness’s account in making a prosecutive decision.


All these reluctant witnesses seem to back Wilson's account. Strange
 
According to Wilson, he was traveling westbound on Canfield Drive, having just finished another call, when he saw Brown and Witness 101 walking single file in the middle of the street on the yellow line. Wilson had never before met either Brown or Witness 101. Wilson approached Witness 101 first and told him to use the sidewalk because there had been cars trying to pass them. When pressed by federal prosecutors, Wilson denied using profane language, explaining that he was on his way to meet his fiancée for lunch, and did not want to antagonize the two subjects. Witness 101 responded to Wilson that he was almost to his destination, and Wilson replied, “What’s wrong with the sidewalk?” Wilson stated that Brown unexpectedly
responded, “**** what you have to say.” As Wilson drove past Brown, he saw cigarillos in Brown’s hand, which alerted him to a radio dispatch of a “stealing in progress” that he heard a few minutes prior while finishing his last call. Wilson then checked his rearview mirror, and realized that Witness 101 matched the description of the other subject on the radio dispatch.
Wilson requested assistance over the radio, stating that he had two subjects on Canfield Drive. Wilson explained that he intended to stop Brown and Witness 101 and wait for backup before he did any further investigation into the theft. Wilson reversed his vehicle and parked in a manner to block Brown and Witness 101 from walking any further. Upon doing so, he attempted to open his driver’s door, and said, “Hey, come here.” Before Wilson got his leg out, Brown responded, “What the **** are you gonna do?”4 Brown then slammed the door shut and Wilson told him to “get back.” Wilson attempted to open the door again. Wilson told the county grand jury that he then told Brown, “Get the **** back,” but Brown did not comply and, using his body, pushed the door closed on Wilson.
Brown placed his hands on the window frame of the driver’s door, and again Wilson told Brown to “get back.” To Wilson’s surprise, Brown then leaned into the driver’s window, so that his arms and upper torso were inside the SUV. Brown started assaulting Wilson, “swinging wildly.” Brown, still with cigarillos in his hand, turned around and handed the items to Witness 101 using his left hand, telling Witness 101 “take these.” Wilson used the opportunity to grab Brown’s right arm, but Brown used his left hand to twice punch Wilson’s jaw. As Brown assaulted Wilson, Wilson leaned back, blocking the blows with his forearms. Brown hit Wilson on the side of his face and grabbed his shirt, hands, and arms. Wilson feared that Brown’s blows could potentially render him unconscious, leaving him vulnerable to additional harm.
Wilson explained that he resorted to his training and the “use of force triangle” to determine how to properly defend himself. Wilson explained that he did not carry a taser, and therefore, his options were mace, his flashlight, his retractable asp baton, and his firearm. Wilson’s mace was on his left hip and Wilson explained that he knew that the space within the SUV was too small to use it without incapacitating himself in the process. Wilson’s asp baton was located on the back of his duty belt. Wilson determined that not only would he have to lean forward to reach it, giving more of an advantage to Brown, but there was not enough space in the SUV to expand the baton. Wilson’s flashlight was in his duty bag on the passenger seat, out of his reach. Wilson explained that his gun, located on his right hip, was his only readily accessible option.
Consequently, while the assault was in progress and Brown was leaning in through the window with his arms, torso, and head inside the SUV, Wilson withdrew his gun and pointed it at Brown. Wilson warned Brown to stop or he was going to shoot him. Brown stated, “You are too much of a pussy to shoot,” and put his right hand over Wilson’s right hand, gaining control of the gun. Brown then maneuvered the gun so that it was pointed down at Wilson’s left hip. Wilson explained that Brown’s size and strength, coupled with his standing position outside the SUV relative to Wilson’s seated position inside the SUV, rendered Wilson completely vulnerable. Wilson stated that he feared Brown was going to shoot him because Brown had control of the gun. Wilson managed to use his left elbow to brace against the seat, gaining enough leverage to push the gun forward until it lined up with the driver’s door, just under the handle. Wilson explained that he twice pulled the trigger but the gun did not fire, most likely because Brown’s hand was preventing the gun from functioning properly. Wilson pulled the trigger a third time and the gun fired into the door. Immediately, glass shattered because the window had been down, and Wilson noticed blood on his own hand. Wilson initially thought he had been cut by the glass.
Brown appeared to be momentarily startled because he briefly backed up. Wilson saw Brown put his hand down to his right hip, and initially assumed the bullet went through the door and struck Brown there. Wilson then described Brown becoming enraged, and that Brown “looked like a demon.” Brown then leaned into the driver’s window so that his head and arms were inside the SUV and he assaulted Wilson again. Wilson explained that while blocking his face with his left hand, he tried to fire his gun with his right hand, but the gun jammed. Wilson lifted the gun, without looking, and used both hands to manually clear the gun while also trying to shield himself. He then successfully fired another shot, holding the gun in his right hand. According to Wilson, he could not see where he shot, but did not think that he struck Brown because he saw “smoke” outside the window, seemingly from the ground, indicating to him a point of impact that was farther away.
Brown then took off running. Wilson radioed for additional assistance, calling out that shots were fired. Wilson then chased after Brown on foot. Federal prosecutors questioned Wilson as to why he did not drive away or wait for backup, but instead chose to pursue Brown despite the attack he just described. Wilson explained that he ran after Brown because Brown posed a danger to others, having just assaulted a police officer and likely stolen from Ferguson Market. Given Brown’s violent and otherwise erratic behavior, Wilson was concerned that Brown was a danger to anyone who crossed his path as he ran.
Wilson denied firing any shots while Brown was running from him. Rather he kept his gun out, but down in a “low ready” position. Wilson explained that he chased after Brown, repeatedly yelling at him to stop and get on the ground. Brown kept running, but when he was about 20 to 30 feet from Wilson, abruptly stopped, and turned around toward Wilson, appearing “psychotic,” “hostile,” and “crazy,” as though he was “looking through” Wilson. While making a “grunting noise” and with what Wilson described as the “most intense aggressive face” that he had ever seen on a person, Brown then made a hop-like movement, similar to what a person does when he starts running. Brown then started running at Wilson, closing the distance between them to about 15 feet. Wilson explained that he again feared for his life, and backed up as Brown came toward him, repeatedly ordering Brown to stop and get on the ground. Brown failed to comply and kept coming at Wilson. Wilson explained that he knew if Brown reached him, he “would be done.” During Brown’s initial strides, Brown put his right hand in what appeared to be his waistband, albeit covered by his shirt. Wilson thought Brown might be reaching for a weapon. Wilson fired multiple shots. Brown paused. Wilson explained that he then paused, again yelled for Brown to get on the ground, and again Brown charged at him, hand in waistband. Wilson backed up and fired again. The same thing happened a third time where Brown very briefly paused, and Wilson paused and yelled for Brown to get on the ground. Brown continued to “charge.” Wilson described having tunnel vision on Brown’s right arm, all the while backing up as Brown approached, not understanding why Brown had yet to stop. Wilson fired the last volley of shots when Brown was about eight to ten feet from him. When Wilson fired the last shot, he saw the bullet go into Brown’s head, and Brown “went down right there.” Wilson initially estimated that on the roadway, he fired five shots and then two shots, none of which had any effect on Brown. Then Brown leaned forward as though he was getting ready to “tackle” Wilson, and Wilson fired the last shot.

At the time of his interview, federal prosecutors and agents were aware of the autopsy, DNA, and ballistics results, as detailed below. Wilson’s account was consistent with those results, and consistent with the accounts of other independent eyewitnesses, whose accounts were also consistent with the physical evidence. Wilson’s statements were consistent with each other in all material ways, and would not be subject to effective impeachment for inconsistencies or deviation from the physical evidence. Therefore, in analyzing all of the evidence, federal prosecutors found Wilson’s account to be credible.
 
According to Wilson, he was traveling westbound on Canfield Drive, having just finished another call, when he saw Brown and Witness 101 walking single file in the middle of the street on the yellow line. Wilson had never before met either Brown or Witness 101. Wilson approached Witness 101 first and told him to use the sidewalk because there had been cars trying to pass them. When pressed by federal prosecutors, Wilson denied using profane language, explaining that he was on his way to meet his fiancée for lunch, and did not want to antagonize the two subjects. Witness 101 responded to Wilson that he was almost to his destination, and Wilson replied, “What’s wrong with the sidewalk?” Wilson stated that Brown unexpectedly
responded, “**** what you have to say.” As Wilson drove past Brown, he saw cigarillos in Brown’s hand, which alerted him to a radio dispatch of a “stealing in progress” that he heard a few minutes prior while finishing his last call. Wilson then checked his rearview mirror, and realized that Witness 101 matched the description of the other subject on the radio dispatch.
Wilson requested assistance over the radio, stating that he had two subjects on Canfield Drive. Wilson explained that he intended to stop Brown and Witness 101 and wait for backup before he did any further investigation into the theft. Wilson reversed his vehicle and parked in a manner to block Brown and Witness 101 from walking any further. Upon doing so, he attempted to open his driver’s door, and said, “Hey, come here.” Before Wilson got his leg out, Brown responded, “What the **** are you gonna do?”4 Brown then slammed the door shut and Wilson told him to “get back.” Wilson attempted to open the door again. Wilson told the county grand jury that he then told Brown, “Get the **** back,” but Brown did not comply and, using his body, pushed the door closed on Wilson.
Brown placed his hands on the window frame of the driver’s door, and again Wilson told Brown to “get back.” To Wilson’s surprise, Brown then leaned into the driver’s window, so that his arms and upper torso were inside the SUV. Brown started assaulting Wilson, “swinging wildly.” Brown, still with cigarillos in his hand, turned around and handed the items to Witness 101 using his left hand, telling Witness 101 “take these.” Wilson used the opportunity to grab Brown’s right arm, but Brown used his left hand to twice punch Wilson’s jaw. As Brown assaulted Wilson, Wilson leaned back, blocking the blows with his forearms. Brown hit Wilson on the side of his face and grabbed his shirt, hands, and arms. Wilson feared that Brown’s blows could potentially render him unconscious, leaving him vulnerable to additional harm.
Wilson explained that he resorted to his training and the “use of force triangle” to determine how to properly defend himself. Wilson explained that he did not carry a taser, and therefore, his options were mace, his flashlight, his retractable asp baton, and his firearm. Wilson’s mace was on his left hip and Wilson explained that he knew that the space within the SUV was too small to use it without incapacitating himself in the process. Wilson’s asp baton was located on the back of his duty belt. Wilson determined that not only would he have to lean forward to reach it, giving more of an advantage to Brown, but there was not enough space in the SUV to expand the baton. Wilson’s flashlight was in his duty bag on the passenger seat, out of his reach. Wilson explained that his gun, located on his right hip, was his only readily accessible option.
Consequently, while the assault was in progress and Brown was leaning in through the window with his arms, torso, and head inside the SUV, Wilson withdrew his gun and pointed it at Brown. Wilson warned Brown to stop or he was going to shoot him. Brown stated, “You are too much of a pussy to shoot,” and put his right hand over Wilson’s right hand, gaining control of the gun. Brown then maneuvered the gun so that it was pointed down at Wilson’s left hip. Wilson explained that Brown’s size and strength, coupled with his standing position outside the SUV relative to Wilson’s seated position inside the SUV, rendered Wilson completely vulnerable. Wilson stated that he feared Brown was going to shoot him because Brown had control of the gun. Wilson managed to use his left elbow to brace against the seat, gaining enough leverage to push the gun forward until it lined up with the driver’s door, just under the handle. Wilson explained that he twice pulled the trigger but the gun did not fire, most likely because Brown’s hand was preventing the gun from functioning properly. Wilson pulled the trigger a third time and the gun fired into the door. Immediately, glass shattered because the window had been down, and Wilson noticed blood on his own hand. Wilson initially thought he had been cut by the glass.
Brown appeared to be momentarily startled because he briefly backed up. Wilson saw Brown put his hand down to his right hip, and initially assumed the bullet went through the door and struck Brown there. Wilson then described Brown becoming enraged, and that Brown “looked like a demon.” Brown then leaned into the driver’s window so that his head and arms were inside the SUV and he assaulted Wilson again. Wilson explained that while blocking his face with his left hand, he tried to fire his gun with his right hand, but the gun jammed. Wilson lifted the gun, without looking, and used both hands to manually clear the gun while also trying to shield himself. He then successfully fired another shot, holding the gun in his right hand. According to Wilson, he could not see where he shot, but did not think that he struck Brown because he saw “smoke” outside the window, seemingly from the ground, indicating to him a point of impact that was farther away.
Brown then took off running. Wilson radioed for additional assistance, calling out that shots were fired. Wilson then chased after Brown on foot. Federal prosecutors questioned Wilson as to why he did not drive away or wait for backup, but instead chose to pursue Brown despite the attack he just described. Wilson explained that he ran after Brown because Brown posed a danger to others, having just assaulted a police officer and likely stolen from Ferguson Market. Given Brown’s violent and otherwise erratic behavior, Wilson was concerned that Brown was a danger to anyone who crossed his path as he ran.
Wilson denied firing any shots while Brown was running from him. Rather he kept his gun out, but down in a “low ready” position. Wilson explained that he chased after Brown, repeatedly yelling at him to stop and get on the ground. Brown kept running, but when he was about 20 to 30 feet from Wilson, abruptly stopped, and turned around toward Wilson, appearing “psychotic,” “hostile,” and “crazy,” as though he was “looking through” Wilson. While making a “grunting noise” and with what Wilson described as the “most intense aggressive face” that he had ever seen on a person, Brown then made a hop-like movement, similar to what a person does when he starts running. Brown then started running at Wilson, closing the distance between them to about 15 feet. Wilson explained that he again feared for his life, and backed up as Brown came toward him, repeatedly ordering Brown to stop and get on the ground. Brown failed to comply and kept coming at Wilson. Wilson explained that he knew if Brown reached him, he “would be done.” During Brown’s initial strides, Brown put his right hand in what appeared to be his waistband, albeit covered by his shirt. Wilson thought Brown might be reaching for a weapon. Wilson fired multiple shots. Brown paused. Wilson explained that he then paused, again yelled for Brown to get on the ground, and again Brown charged at him, hand in waistband. Wilson backed up and fired again. The same thing happened a third time where Brown very briefly paused, and Wilson paused and yelled for Brown to get on the ground. Brown continued to “charge.” Wilson described having tunnel vision on Brown’s right arm, all the while backing up as Brown approached, not understanding why Brown had yet to stop. Wilson fired the last volley of shots when Brown was about eight to ten feet from him. When Wilson fired the last shot, he saw the bullet go into Brown’s head, and Brown “went down right there.” Wilson initially estimated that on the roadway, he fired five shots and then two shots, none of which had any effect on Brown. Then Brown leaned forward as though he was getting ready to “tackle” Wilson, and Wilson fired the last shot.

At the time of his interview, federal prosecutors and agents were aware of the autopsy, DNA, and ballistics results, as detailed below. Wilson’s account was consistent with those results, and consistent with the accounts of other independent eyewitnesses, whose accounts were also consistent with the physical evidence. Wilson’s statements were consistent with each other in all material ways, and would not be subject to effective impeachment for inconsistencies or deviation from the physical evidence. Therefore, in analyzing all of the evidence, federal prosecutors found Wilson’s account to be credible.
You need to explain how Wilson's account is contradicted by ANY physical evidence, or "credible" eyewitness account.

Then you need to explain how the DOJ report doesn't say what is says right there in the bolded part at the end.

Then explain how a trial would uncover any of your discrepancies satisfactorily to convict Wilson of littering, much less murder.
 
ADVERTISEMENT