In short, Darren Wilson wants us to believe that Michael Brown, after sustaining two gunshot wounds to the chest and one to the forehead, while facing Wilson, was able to muster the extraordinary and near superhuman will necessary to lower his head and charge Wilson from roughly 8-10 feet away, at which point Wilson had no choice but to pump one last round into the top of Brown’s head. It’s worth noting that former New York City medical examiner Michael Baden, (who conducted an independent autopsy at the request of Brown’s family), was more specific, saying that the forehead shot shattered Michael Brown’s right eye.

So not only did Michael Brown shake off the shot that shattered his right eye, he also shook off two shots to his chest before he lowered his head and charged Wilson.

I think that’s a great big load of bullshit. Here’s a more likely scenario.

There was an altercation at the patrol car during which Wilson quickly pulled his gun and pointed it at Brown. Brown, rather than attempting to gain control of the weapon to shoot Wilson, grabs at it in a failed attempt to keep Wilson from shooting him. Wilson shoots, striking Brown’s thumb. Brown flees as Wilson exits the patrol car and shoots again, which prompts Brown to stop, turn around, and perhaps start toward Wilson. Wilson opens fire yet again, from 20-30 feet away, striking Brown twice in the chest, once in the forehead, and then in the top of the head as Brown is falling forward, or maybe even after he’s already on the ground.

For an example of how St Louis area police will shoot a suspect who is starting toward them, continue shooting after that suspect is already on the ground and then lie about what happened, presumably in order to justify the shooting in the public’s mind, take a look at what happened to Kajieme Powell. Powell was shot and killed ten days after the killing of Michael Brown.

Shortly after the Powell shooting St Louis police Chief Sam Dotson held a press conference and said that Powell was within 2-3 feet of his officers, holding a knife high in an overhand grip, and reaching for his waistband when officers shot him. What Dotson didn’t know at the time was that a citizen had captured the entire event on a cellphone, and that the film revealed that almost none of what Dotson said was true. The video shows clearly that Powell is perhaps 6-8 feet from the officers, his hands are at his sides, and he does not, at any time after police arrive, reach for his waistband. Powell is shot by police at least twice after he’s already on the ground. It’s worth noting that Darren Wilson, in his interview with George Stephanopolous, claims that just as Michael Brown started back toward him after initially fleeing………….. wait for it……………….  was reaching for his waistband.

Either Sam Dotson knowingly lied to the press and public about the circumstances surrounding the killing of Kajieme Powell, or the two officers who did the shooting lied to Dotson.

And I think Darren Wilson is lying too.

56 Responses to Why I’m convinced Darren Wilson is lying

  1. Erik says:

    We will never know. What I can tell you is I just completed a 36 hour firearms class, the class was taught by two former police officers who had more than 60 years combined experience. They said that when you shoot to stop the threat, you better hit the subject in the central nervous system because if you don’t, all you will do is piss them off. They told at least three stories of people being shot in the chest at close range and continued to fight with police due to the adrenaline experienced from the fight and the anger from the shots.

    A person should never be in the front of a police vehicle in a confrontation with an officer. The second he reached for the gun, brown was not only a danger to Wilson, but also to others. At that point it is completely justified to shoot brown.

    I carry a gun everyday for my job, if someone reaches for my holster, they are doing so for 3 reasons.

    1. To use my weapon to harm someone
    2. To prevent me from using my weapon ( meaning they would be giving me a reason to use it)
    3.mto take my gun to sell it ( most unlikely and would almost never be a reason, but none the less I included it)

    • John Casper says:

      Erik,

      AFTER you get done answering Steve’s questions:

      1. What’s the day you completed this 36-hour firearms class?
      2. What were the name of the two former police officers?
      3. Where did you take the class?
      4. How frequently did it meet?
      5. How much did they charge you
      6. What gun do you carry?
      6.1 What kind of ammo?
      7. What’s your job?
      8. Please tell us everything you know about Officer Wilson’s gun and the ammo he used. Provide as much detail as you can about the stopping power of the weapon.
      9. How many times did he shoot at Mike Brown?
      10. How many hit Mike Brown?
      11. How far was Mike Brown’s body away from Officer Wilson’s SUV?

      • Tommy Fleming says:

        This was so fake it’s funny. None of those guns in the guy’s hands were firing. The gunshots were still blasting and the passenger was getting into the truck. I don’t know what this was but at best it may be used in a sad cartoon.

    • Erik, I think what most folks are having a hard time understanding is how Darren Wilson was justified in shooting and killing an unarmed man from a distance of greater than 10 feet. It seems pretty clear to me that Michael Brown engaged in several behaviors that were absolutely illegal and put everyone’s safety at risk, but I’m still having a hard time wrapping my brain around why deadly force needed to be used when it appears he was attempting to surrender.

  2. Erik,

    Did you read the links embedded in the text? Both the official and independent autopsies agree that Brown was shot in the forehead before Wilson claimed Brown lowered his head to charge him. Did your instructors tell you of three separate instances where suspects continued fighting with police after their right eye was shattered by a gunshot?

    I don’t believe Darren Wilson. I don’t believe Michael Brown was reaching for Wilson’s gun/holster. I believe Michael Brown, not Darren Wilson, was fighting for his life. I provided links/proof that cops in the St. Louis area will lie to cover their asses. Unfortunately Michael Brown isn’t here to tell his side of the story. All he gets is Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity fans smearing his name after he’s been murdered by a cop.

    If you can explain to us how in the name of the sweet weeping mother of God Michael Brown could have charged Darren Wilson after being shot in the forehead I’ll be happy to apologize to you and Darren Wilson. If not the post stands as it is.

  3. One more thing, Erik. Your story, and the alleged stories of your instructors is about as believable as Darren Wilson’s.

  4. Denis Navratil says:

    I could write your essay more accurately and more briefly.

    Why Steve Carlson is convinced that Darren Wilson is lying.

    Because as a progressive, I am predisposed to believe any fabrication, myth, conspiracy theory, or irrelevant information that points to Darren Wilson’s culpability. Likewise, I will believe any and all fabrications, myth, and irrelevant information that points to Michael Brown’s innocence.

    • Actually, Denis, it’s much simpler than your explanation. I don’t believe a man already shot through the right eye can muster what it takes to lower his head and charge anybody. The autopsies aren’t progressive, Denis, they’re forensic pathology.

      And I do believe the documented evidence which shows cops lying about the killing of a black man in the St. Louis area. Facts aren’t progressive either, Denis.

      And I’m surprised that a libertarian would suggest that Michael Brown needs to somehow be proven innocent since he hadn’t been charged with anything and, up until the moment he died, anyway, was still entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence.

      If you’re not a libertarian Denis then what are you? Klan?

      • John Casper says:

        Via Twitter

        @Lnonblonde

        St Louis Rams Players In Solidarity With #Ferguson Hold #HandsUp During Team Introductions via http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11958985/st-louis-rams-give-pregame-salute-ferguson-missouri

      • Denis Navratil says:

        Steve, I have been pretty straightforward about whom I consider to be my opponents. It is the far left, progressives, Dems, liberals etc… that I disagree with, very strongly at times. I think hatred towards any group, which KKK affiliation would clearly indicate, is a sickness. If I were to hate anyone, it would be the progressives etc… like anon or JC or you. But I don’t hate them or you, nor will I, even though I believe your views are often reckless and dangerous. So cut the crap about the Klan. If I were a member or sympathetic toward their views, I would say so. It is possible to disagree with you or your views without being filled with hate.

        • John Casper says:

          Denis,

          Based on what you wrote in the “Discuss the Ferguson Decision,” you sound to me like a white supremacist.

          http://bloggingblue.com/2014/11/discuss-the-ferguson-decision/

          Read all your comments about browns and blacks. You include Italians as “white,” but not Mexicans and Jews.

          Galatians 3:28

          There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

        • John Casper says:

          Denis,

          Please prioritize a list of the top five “reckless” and “dangerous” views that you’ve read here at BB.

          Thanks in advance.

          • Denis Navratil says:

            Bad ideas from BB and progressivism generally, numbered, but not necessarily from bad to worst or worst to merely bad.

            1. Islam is no more problematic than other religions.
            2. White racism is the primary problem in black communities.
            3. Any pronouncements on global warming and subsequent solutions.
            4. The government can accomplish ____________.
            5. Capitalism is a problem.

            • EmmaR says:

              1. There are multiple views within Islam. We should target our ire at those who use their faith to promote violence and diminish human rights.

              2. Black communities are still grappling with the effects of institutional racism. Recent court decisions and policy initiatives to roll back gains are not helping.

              3. Climate change is undeniable and after all, what is the argument against stewardship and planning for future generations?

              4. All public and private institutions serve at the pleasure of the people. Or so said Edmond Burke, father of conservatism. Er, do you even know who that liberal thinker was Denis?

              5. If only we had capitalism. Instead we have massive corporate subsidies, Wall Street bail out’s, protected monopolies, etc.

              There – fixed it for you!

              • nonquixote says:

                Slow keyboarder here, I like those. Guessing a search for Mary Burke got him nowhere fast, last time you mentioned, liberal thinker. 😉

                • EmmaR says:

                  I’m guessing he has no idea what to do with the fact that liberal thinkers created conservatism. (Adam Smith was a liberal? What the…?) And If he’s lucky he’ll start to ponder on just where his Party’s authoritarianism, militarism, manipulated economics and overriding fear come from.

              • Denis Navratil says:

                EmmaR, I have noticed your incessant Burke-baiting if late. What is your point? Yes I have heard of Burke, Locke, Smith etc… Tell me what your brilliant mind has gleaned from his writings, since you keep bring him up. If you need some reference material, you can probably do no better than reading Thomas Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions…. Ideological Origins of Political Struggles. And yes I have read it, sigh.

                • John Casper says:

                  Denis,

                  Sowell’s been on wingnut welfare at the Hudson Institute forever. Isn’t his claim to fame being that he supported Judge Bork for the Supreme Court? The same Bork who worked for President Nixon and on his orders fired Archibald Cox, the Watergate investigator. According to Bork didn’t the U.S. Constitution allow the government to force child birth?

                  The link below’s from 2009. Just after the one minute mark, Sowell’s denying climate change.

                  https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=thomas+sowelll+climate+change&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2-ytff-

                  Does he still deny it?

                • EmmaR says:

                  Always ducking the tough questions, aren’t you Denis?

                  • Denis Navratil says:

                    Yes I know all about what is now called classical liberalism, the proper name needing to be changed to reflect the damage done to the word by todays liberals/progressives.

            • nonquixote says:

              Rather than getting sucked farther OT here, with these, I’m sure the rest of us can easily wait for separate and individual diaries submitted to Zach for publication, from the 7:44 am, to explain and elaborate further.

              • EmmaR says:

                I for one would love to see a genuine small c conservative with deep knowledge of conservative thought and understanding of the issues comment here. Sadly, Denis is just not up to the task.

                • Denis Navratil says:

                  So you want to talk political philosophy? Ever wonder why you are your ilk are so snarky, condescending, and ever willing to accuse the right of all manner of immorality? Your behavior just continues the trend from the days of Malthus and Godwin. Sowell explains:

                  In addition to these changing asymmetric relationships between the two visions, (progs and cons) there is an enduring asymmetric relationship based on how they see each other as adversaries. Each must regard the other as mistaken, but the reason for the “mistake” are different. In the unconstrained vision (ie progressives)…the presence of highly educated and intelligent people diametrically opposed to policies aimed at that common good is either an intellectual puzzle or a moral outrage, or both. Implications of bad faith, venality, or other moral or intellectual deficiencies have been much more common in the unconstrained vision’s criticisms of the constrained vision (ie conservatives) than vice versa. In the constrained vision, where the individual’s capacity for direct social decision-making is quite limited, it is far less surprising that those who attempt it should fail – and therefore far less necessary to regard the “mistaken” adversary as having less morality or intelligence than others. Those with the constrained vision tend to refer to their adversaries as well-meaning but mistaken, or unrealistic in their assumptions, with seldom a suggestion that they are deliberately opposing the common good or are too stupid to recognize it.

                  So Malthus was generally charitable towards contemporaries with whom he disagreed, such as Godwin and Condorcet, while Godwin described Malthus as “malignant”, and he questioned his humanity and said “I profess myself at a loss to conceive of what earth the man was made.”

                  To summarize for you Emma, I understand the historical and philosophical reasons why you and yours so frequently behave like condescending a-holes.

                  • That’s one of the finest examples of shallow, one dimensional, faux intellectualism you’ve ever posted here Denis. You’re getting more polished as you practice your craft.

                    I apologize for my previous ” Klan ” comment. It seems more likely that a guy who hates progressives and doesn’t mind seeing cops gun down unarmed people on the street is a crypto-fascist.

                  • nonquixote says:

                    Still waiting on when the talking about political philosophy begins. Wake me up when you get to it. As I don’t intend to buy the book, you have a page reference for reading the context of the quote?

            • John Casper says:

              Denis,

              1. You’re not going to like this WSJ piece about Islam.

              “One Muslim’s Quest to Save a Revered Syrian Synagogue: A Syrian Muslim Sought Help From Israel and American Jews”

              http://online.wsj.com/articles/one-muslims-quest-to-save-a-revered-syrian-synagogue-1417491144?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop

              2. Please disclose ALL your qualifications for speaking about “blacks.”

              2.1 Please define what you mean by “black.”

              2.2 Are you black?

              3. Please disclose ALL your qualifications for speaking about global warming/climate change.

              3.1 What happened to the commercial fishing industry in Lake Michigan?

              “The Decline of a Once Great Fishery”
              http://www.jsonline.com/news/127244963.html

              3.2 Is it related to global warming/climate change?

              3.3 Why did the “market” not solve this?

  5. John Casper says:

    Denis wrote: “I could write your essay more accurately and more briefly.”

    Nope.

    1. Denis, how many feet was the UNARMED Mike Brown’s body away from Officer Wilson’s SUV?

    2. Denis, on another thread, you said it only took 9 Grand Jury members to clear Officer Wilson. Do you have a link to how the 12 Grand Jury members actually voted?

    3. Denis, you’ve lost Nancy Grace, who says she’s NEVER before sided against a police officer. She asks, “where are the bruises?” http://www.inquisitr.com/1640399/darren-wilson-nancy-grace/

    4. Denis, where are Officer Wilson’s bruises?

    Nancy also mentions that D.A. McCulloch used the Grand Jury. As a D.A., she would present 75 – 100 cases to a Grand Jury in a single day. D.A. McCulloch spent months with this Grand Jury on ONE case. He abdicated his role as PROSECUTOR, and USED the Grand Jury to act as Officer Wilson’s DEFENSE counsel.

    Per Justice Scalia:

    “It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788 ); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.

    United States v. Williams

    Officer Wilson had NO right to testify before the Grand Jury. D.A. McCulloch had no right to present exculpatory evidence. That’s what trials are for. The judge decides what evidence is admissible.

    D.A. McCulloch was trashing any witness who didn’t support Officer Wilson’s version.

    Scott Greenfield’s a well known defense attorney and he makes the same points here.

    “…McCulloch didn’t have to go to the grand jury at all. He could have prosecuted Wilson by fiat had he wanted to do so. He did not. He was not going to be the person who charged Wilson with any variation of homicide. But in deciding to take the case to the grand jury, the lie was born.

    Whether Darren Wilson would have been convicted after trial remains unclear; perhaps the case against him for the killing of Michael Brown wouldn’t have survived scrutiny. Perhaps the structural benefits given law enforcement to kill without fear would have allowed him to circumvent conviction. Perhaps he wasn’t guilty. We will never know.

    The grand jury transcript offers little comfort. Those who explain that it’s transparency are lying to you. It’s all part of the Ferguson Lie. While it tells us what was presented, it doesn’t tell us what was not. It’s unchallenged, unquestioned and unquestionable evidence. There is no adversary in the grand jury to roar against its one-sided presentation.

    That it ended without the prosecutor asking the grand jury for an indictment is unheard of. By this omission, it ended with the prosecutor telling the grand jury that a close call goes to the defendant. It ended as it was meant to end, as the foregone conclusion demanded it end.

    The merit of the grand jury presentation relies entirely on our acceptance of Bob McCulloch’s office desiring an indictment against Darren Wilson. Just as a prosecutor can indict any damn person he pleases, he can similarly make sure a person is not indicted. He does so through subtle tricks. He does so through big lies. Like presenting “all the evidence.” Like the Ferguson Lie.

    Had the prosecution desired an indictment against Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, the presentment would have taken an hour, maybe two, and there would have been a true bill by close of business the next day, well before Michael Brown had been laid to rest. The grand jury isn’t the venue to present “all the evidence.” That’s what trials are for. The grand jury serves a very limited function, to determine whether sufficient evidence exists so that there is probable cause to proceed to trial.

    …”

    http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/11/25/the-ferguson-lie/

  6. Duane12 says:

    Correction to a common delusion of Republicans, especially trolls and biased county prosecutors:

    “Because as a conservative, I am predisposed to believe any fabrication, myth, conspiracy theory,or irrelevant information that points to Michael Brown’s culpability. Likewise, I will believe any and all fabrication, myth, and irrelevant information that points to Darren Wilson’s culpability.”

  7. nonquixote says:

    With you on the “altercation,” just prior to Brown running for his life, Steve.

    My unprovable assertion (Michael Brown has not yet testified) is that the at the same time the vehicle door was being swung open, Wilson had his gun fully unholstered and was aiming through the already opened vehicle window at, and to force some sort of compliance, upon Michael Brown. This was going to be an execution just as the 12-yr old boy Tamir Rice in Cleveland was.

    When Michael ran after being shot at the vehicle, it became solely Wilson’s decision to summarily execute the young man. There was no impending public safety threat for Wilson to have single-handedly attempted to apprehend two teens for walking in the street and absolutely no need to chase and murder Michael Brown.

    http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/photo-galleries/2014/11/24/michael-brown-evidence-from-shooting-scene/

  8. Chris says:

    I agree Nonquixote. Without question, officer Wilson started work that day with the intention of killing the biggest most innocent black man he could find. What a racist pig! Clearly Brown was an innocent victim of this RACE MONGERS BLOOD desire.

    I heard several witnesses state that Officer Wilson was seen eating the victims heart. What a satanist cannibalistic racist act by a clearly racist piece of nothing loser cop.

  9. chris says:

    This just in! A pack of blood thirsty black boys beat a white Russian immigrant to death with hammers right outside of st Louis! Luckily there were no police around to stop the attackers with threats of taking away their hammers. That would have been against their civil rights and racist. Can’t be takin no black boys hammers away.

    This also just in! Not one black person burnt down no buildings to protect the hammer death of a white white man at the hands of thugs

    • John Casper says:

      chris,

      You’re going to like this letter from @TefPoe to President Obama.

      “…Right now we are being treated like enemies of the state while the racist police force continues to arm itself and occupy our communities. We encountered the harsh nature of the militarized police force first-hand. We were tear-gassed and hoarded into jail cells like livestock, simply for chanting in honor of Mike Brown. Armored vehicles turned our neighborhood into a military encampment. Young women from Palestine have visited us and lectured us about constructing homemade gas masks. College students are actively searching online for affordable bulletproof vests. …”

      http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/rftmusic/2014/12/dear_mr_president_a_letter_from_tef_poe.php

    • Really Chris? Really?

      Knock if off already.

  10. Denis Navratil says:

    Making an awful fuss about what will certainly be proven, by the geniuses at BB, to be just an unfortunate workplace accident. Nothing to see there Chris, just move along, doesn’t fit the narrative.

    • God almighty, Denis, are you really going to buddy up with this Chris guy? Really? Goddamn.

    • Denis, was there really a need to insult folks’ intelligence? I’m starting to get the sense you’re not interested in having a discussion anymore.

      • Denis Navratil says:

        Zach, obviously there was a bit of a dig there. But scroll up and see that I have been described as a white supremacist, KKK member and crypto-fascist, whatever that is. My dig was intended to point out the tendency here to mold and distort the facts and myths to arrive at the predetermined and politically correct conclusion, hence the “workplace accident” joke. Pretty tame by comparison, and funny, if I do say so myself. That said, I don’t really think that the BB folks would actually claim the murder to be a workplace accident. That was exaggeration for effect. I would love to discuss the tendency of commenters here to arrive at conclusions first, seek supporting facts and opinions later, but I doubt any would be willing to admit the problem in the first place. So it is not me that is an obstacle to discussion. Indeed, look above again. I offered a serious quote about the differing views we have towards each other, throughout history, and I get pure nonsense responses.

    • Last time I checked, accidents were accidental.

      Darren Wilson shooting Michael Brown and officers shooting Kajieme Powell weren’t accidental.

  11. chris says:

    Dennis: Right you are! Sad how animalistic black youth thugs can basically kill whites without a peep from the liberal ruling class. Chances are that the white immigrant gentlemen was a KKK racist fascist bastard that deserves to be hammered to death. Stupid racist immigrant had to put his head in the way of hammers that the innocent black youth were swinging…

  12. chris says:

    Emma….. a mob attack using HAMMERS to beat a man to death with blows to the FACE AND SKULL of the victim. That is the definition of animalistic.

  13. chris says:

    EMMA!!! Can you beat a man to death using hammers in a non-animalistic way? Imagine what that must have felt like to put a hammer through the FACE AND SKULL of a screaming human being… animalistic thug comes to my mind. Maybe they were just misunderstood young black carpenters. Yeah that’s it!

  14. chris says:

    John I don’t support hammering people to death. But I am disheartened that you might support child rape.

    • John Casper says:

      “John, as my multiple contributions in this thread confirm, I really enjoy talking about hammering people to death and child rape.”

      FIFY

  15. I understand this is a topic that folks on both sides of the issue feel very strongly about, but there’s no need to let the discussion devolve.

    If you all can’t “play nicely,” I’m going to start taking action. This is my final warning.

  16. Denis Navratil says:

    Really Zach, do you read the insults I endure on a daily basis? I get that you are frustrated with the state of affairs here at times, as am I. Typically I post a conservative point of view, admittedly sometimes with an edge, and, rather than getting the liberal retort, I get name calling, suggestions that I am racist etc…and when I respond, far more subtly, I get a warning about being banned. Never seen you do that to the worst offender here, nonq. Anyway, ban me if you must, it has been fun, and your regulars will get bored though they won’t admit it.

  17. Aleatha Carr says:

    The fairytale that Wilson believed Brown was reaching for a gun in his waistband is patently ridiculous. As the OTHER guy who was running for his life from Wilson’s tirade said, Brown was wearing running shorts. He would not have been able to carry a gun in that waistband. Even if he’d managed to stop it from falling out with every three steps walking, it would have IMMEDIATELY fallen out while running. Wilson is a lying murderer.

  18. SoHo Tim Smokin says:

    The officer was very aggressive. You think that he just pulled up, stopped and ask them to move to the sidewalk? That is not what Dorian or Darren stated he did. He did that in passing and did not repeat himself. He stated what was ordered as “Get the fuck on the sidewalk” and kept going. (aggression one) He then looked in his review mirror and saw that his insult order was ignored.

    Then he threw is SUV into reverse. Now he didn’t slowly back up, he did it such a way as to get it noticed by witnesses. (aggression two)

    He then pulled right up to pair blocking the road. (Aggression three) He did not do that, and asked them for some “Grey Poupon”. No, he was not calm enough to say “Hey, come here for a minute,” after just cursing at them a minute earlier. What officer do you know will passively come to anybody he just gave a hard order to. No, he pulled up right next to them blocking the road, and then he said “What the fuck did you say”.

    That’s when he threw his door at them without warning. (Aggression Four) What would you do, but raise your hands in defense of your body. It’s just natural. But that instinct would not just hold the door if their are two of you. You might just close the door by accident. An already steamed Police officer might just take that the wrong way. He said he “Felt Trapped” in his own vehicle. Something he instigated. He then reaches out and grabs Michael Brown in retaliation. (Aggression Five) But the tussle starts when Michael Brown hears “I’ll shoot you” and see the gun being pulled out. You would do the same thing. Nobody is calm when a gun is being pointed at them.

    They didn’t walk over to the door. They didn’t have to. Officer Wilson pulled up right next to them, and then tried to exit his SUV without warning. Bad police do that when they want to try and provoke a negative reaction. It would have nice for him to say step back. But he didn’t. The door coming back is a reaction. He wanted any reaction and what he got was the door coming back. Then he said he felt trapped, but he felt trapped by his own doing. So he made himself more angry than he already was, having to repeat himself. When he asked “What the fuck did you say” He was ready not to take any lip from them.

    Michael Brown never leaned into the vehicle. He was never inside the officers SUV. Michael Brown was grabbed, so being grabbed, he put both his hands on the outside of the SUV door, that was the tussle. The tussle got serious, when Darren Wilson pulled out his own gun threatening to shoot, and firing, hitting Michael Brown in the shoulder.

    But none of that even matters. He fired at Michael Brown while he was running away. You can’t do that no where in the United States. A bullet hit Michael Brown in the back of the right forearm. And that is the only way that he could have been hit. This charging angle? If he was hit in the rear of the right forearm while charging, then the bullet, having turned after hitting the ulna bone and turning left would have re-enter the body in the chest. He hand no chest bullet wound.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *