Dorian Johnson Recants Media Statement ?

a reply to: Greven

Oh, brother.

In order to effectively withdraw as an accomplice, you need to do more than you think.

If Johnson in his initial interview with police lied at all about the convenience store situation, he was still on the hook.

The fact they have not charged him, and announced it, could very well mean a deal was struck.

Of course whether any of this happened is still just speculation, but not impossible.

a reply to: loam
Wrong. If he lied about being present at that crime scene, he would be guilty of Misprision.
Accomplice is a very narrow term. Look up what it requires.

edit: Additionally, you too are making the argument that the Ferguson Police Chief is lying. Read what he said, with emphasis added:

"We have determined he [Johnson] committed no crime," Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said Friday.

Not plea deal. Not suspect. Not anything - committed no crime.

a reply to: Greven

Wrong. Johnson was not an accomplice. Stop
claiming that he was.

Additionally, by making this argument, you are
accusing the Ferguson Chief of Police of lying.
URGENT - Missouri Dorian Johnson No Robbery Charges

Lies.

www.nationaljournal.com...

Dorian Johnson, the man police have said they believe was Brown's accomplice in the robbery, has been cleared of criminal wrongdoing, Jackson said.

The police cheif used the word accomplice AFTER clearing him of wrongdoing in the burglary.

Big fat cluestick.

That did NOT clear him of charges in a capitol offense of felony murder if he is charged by any other agency. He can still be charged by police, as well, UNLESS, and until, he gains immunity for his testimony.

HIS word. NOT MINE.

a reply to: Libertygal

Also, from your WND source:

WND EXCLUSIVE
FERGUSON-SHOOTING WITNESS WANTED IN 2011 CASE
Outstanding warrant calls for extradition after failure to appear at theft trial

WND, one of the worst political hack "news" sites on the web has an "exclusive" that isn't relevant to what actually happened? Dismiss every single word that Dorian Johnson says. Do all of the other eye witnesses that aren't corroborating the cop's story similarly have outstanding warrants from 2011?

Or wait, are you trying to prove that they have leverage on Johnson to get him to change his story to fit the FPD account? As for this:

1. Michael Brown was shot in the back
2. Michael Brown's hands were raised, and he said, "Don't shoot, I am unarmed".
3. Michael Brown was shot in the right arm, while standing at the door.

How has it been disproved that Michael Brown was hit while fleeing? According to the NY Times article you linked, the FPD narrative has shifted to include Darren Wilson firing at unarmed men as they were running away. How was it disproved that Michael Brown was shot in the right arm/shoulder while standing at the door?

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: loam
Wrong. If he lied about being present at that crime scene, he would be guilty of Misprision.
Accomplice is a very narrow term. Look up what it requires.

Maybe you both should start using the correct source for your debate -

Missouri Revised Statutes - All of them
and
Chapter 569 - Robbery, Arson, Burglary and Related Offenses

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Libertygal

I would venture to say he misspoke, which I know in your eyes means his entire account is incorrect so save me the breakdown.

Oh, so first the star witness is God. Now, he misspoke.

How about, he LIED. Then, when confronted with the video of the burglary, and evidence the police have that no one else has seen, like pictures of Darren's face, he crumped.

Why is it so hard to admit the lying liar got caught? The evidence is right in your face, yet, you continue to defend his lies.

It's really pathetic.

a reply to: Greven

Wrong.

Here, you can bone up on Missouri accomplice law:

State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Justin A. Lewis

“[A] prior inconsistent statement can be the sole basis for a guilty verdict”

You can use that source to chase the additional case law.

a reply to: Xcathdra
I've gone over this before in another thread entire, and it is getting old. I even linked to that other thread, but here people want to bicker over a very well understood term.

Plus it's 2am and I got woken up by an earthquake that broke crap in my house at 7am.

a reply to: loam
So you're accusing the Ferguson Chief of Police of lying about there being no crime. Good job!

a reply to: Greven

Yawn.

I'm saying a deal could have been made. Happens all of the time and it's never publicly revealed.

And isn't it ironic you claim Wilson, a police officer, is lying, but can't fathom a police Chief doing the same to protect a deal he's made with a state witness?

a reply to: Libertygal

Once again the Media has incited a riot. Everybody who lost property in Ferguson should bring a class action suit against the Media.

The race hustlers and all the usual suspects have once again been shown to be ignorant, angry and violent fools.

a reply to: XXX777

How is this the media's fault?

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Xcathdra
I've gone over this before in another thread entire, and it is getting old. I even linked to that other thread, but here people want to bicker over a very well understood term.

Plus it's 2am and I got woken up by an earthquake that broke crap in my house at 7am.

a reply to: loam
So you're accusing the Ferguson Chief of Police of lying about there being no crime. Good job!

If you are referring to the accomplice / accessory bit you are incorrect as Missouri does not have accessory statutes.

What we do have is conspiracy charges, but again it requires the person to have knowledge of the crime that is going to be committed and fails to act / prevent / remove him/her self from the situation.

a reply to: loam
I have claimed not such a thing.

I haven't even see his statement.

Stop building strawmen.

a reply to: Xcathdra

...“The law of accessory liability emanates from statute, as construed by the courts.” State v. Barnum, 14 S.W.3d 587, 590 (Mo.banc 2000). Although Missouri at one time made a distinction between principals and accessories to crime, Missouri has since eliminated such a distinction with respect to accomplice liability; therefore, all persons who act in concert to commit a crime are equally guilty. Sistrunk, 414 S.W.3d at 596-97.

Section 562.041.1(2)4 provides that a person is criminally responsible for the conduct of another when “[e]ither before or during the commission of an offense with the purpose of promoting the commission of an offense, he aids or agrees to aid or attempts to aid such other person in planning, committing or attempting to commit the offense.” Accordingly, “[t]o make a submissible case of accomplice liability, the State must show that the defendant associated himself with the venture or participated in the crime in some manner, but the State need not show that the defendant personally committed every element of the crime.” State v. Young, 369 S.W.3d 52, 55 (Mo.App. E.D. 2012). Any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, demonstrating affirmative participation in the crime charged and committed is sufficient to support a conviction. Sistrunk, 414 S.W.3d at 597.

a reply to: Greven

Apologies, but I thought I saw you write somewhere you didn't believe Wilson's reported version. Fair enough, if you didn't.

But no comment on the other items?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Libertygal

Also, from your WND source:

WND EXCLUSIVE
FERGUSON-SHOOTING WITNESS WANTED IN 2011 CASE
Outstanding warrant calls for extradition after failure to appear at theft trial

WND, one of the worst political hack "news" sites on the web has an "exclusive" that isn't relevant to what actually happened? Dismiss every single word that Dorian Johnson says. Do all of the other eye witnesses that aren't corroborating the cop's story similarly have outstanding warrants from 2011?

Or wait, are you trying to prove that they have leverage on Johnson to get him to change his story to fit the FPD account? As for this:

1. Michael Brown was shot in the back
2. Michael Brown's hands were raised, and he said, "Don't shoot, I am unarmed".
3. Michael Brown was shot in the right arm, while standing at the door.

How has it been disproved that Michael Brown was hit while fleeing? According to the NY Times article you linked, the FPD narrative has shifted to include Darren Wilson firing at unarmed men as they were running away. How was it disproved that Michael Brown was shot in the right arm/shoulder while standing at the door?

First of all. The WND article links a courthouse source as the source for the information on the outstanding warrant. The information is credible, and researchable. Good try, but silly trying to impeach a courthouse official. Way to shoot the messenger, as well.

Second. I am not trying to "prove" anything. I am offering explanations as to why Dorian would turn state's evidence. Especially if he was facing a bench warrant, or other charges pending in THIS case, nothing to do with the stupid store, but felony charges, as an accomplice (in the police cheifs words, not mine).

Third. I am making no claims to the veracity of the article, as to the fleeing or not. I very clearly quoted why the article was quoted. Go back to my post.

Dorian gives varying testimony on many, many, occasions, but contradicts himself, fatally, in the MSNBC video, to all of his prior testimony. Period.

He originally claimed that Michael was shot in the arm while running. Then, in the MSNBC video, while sitting next to his attorney and being questioned by Al Sharpton, he changed it to shot in the arm while "tugging" next to the car.

His testimony, in other words, is all over the place.

He clearly claims Michael was shot in the back.


Michael Brown's Story As Told By His Friend, Dori…: youtu.be...



Dorian Johnson: A Tale of Two Mike Brown Stories: youtu.be...



Eyewitness to Michael Brown's Police EXECUTION Re…: youtu.be...



Interview of Dorian Johnson (with Mike Brown duri…: youtu.be...



There. 5 different videos, 5 different stories.

How long did this whole incident last?

60 seconds.

After we ran the officer sat in his car, maybe 2 or 3 minutes, maybe thinking about what he had just done.

He started to get down. (Never made it)

His arms were raised. (Not very much)

He started to say, "Don't shoot, I am unarmed", but never quite got it out.

a reply to: loam

Chapter 562
General Principles of Liability Section 562.041

Responsibility for the conduct of another.
562.041. 1. A person is criminally responsible for the conduct of another when

(1) The statute defining the offense makes him so responsible; or

(2) Either before or during the commission of an offense with the purpose of promoting the commission of an offense, he aids or agrees to aid or attempts to aid such other person in planning, committing or attempting to commit the offense.

2. However, a person is not so responsible if:

(1) He is the victim of the offense committed or attempted;

(2) The offense is so defined that his conduct was necessarily incident to the commission or attempt to commit the offense. If his conduct constitutes a related but separate offense, he is criminally responsible for that offense but not for the conduct or offense committed or attempted by the other person;

(3) Before the commission of the offense he abandons his purpose and gives timely warning to law enforcement authorities or otherwise makes proper effort to prevent the commission of the offense.

3. The defense provided by subdivision (3) of subsection 2 is an affirmative defense.

The statute that is being violated must specifically allow the act of an accomplice and prosecution of that act. I don't know what your background is so no offense. If you also note the term "or" is present. It denotes that only elements of this statue need apply and not all elements.

From your cited court case -

Appellant’s convictions were based on accomplice liability. “The law of
accessory liability emanates from statute, as construed by the courts.” State v. Barnum,
14 S.W.3d 587, 590 (Mo.banc 2000). Although Missouri at one time made a distinction
between principals and accessories to crime, Missouri has since eliminated such a
distinction with respect to accomplice liability; therefore, all persons who act in concert
to commit a crime are equally guilty. Sistrunk, 414 S.W.3d at 596-97.


Section 562.041.1(2)4 provides that a person is criminally responsible for the
conduct of another when “[e]ither before or during the commission of an offense with the
purpose of promoting the commission of an offense, he aids or agrees to aid or attempts
to aid such other person in planning, committing or attempting to commit the offense.”
Accordingly, “[t]o make a submissible case of accomplice liability, the State must show
that the defendant associated himself with the venture or participated in the crime in some
manner, but the State need not show that the defendant personally committed every
element of the crime.” State v. Young, 369 S.W.3d 52, 55 (Mo.App. E.D. 2012). Any
evidence, either direct or circumstantial, demonstrating affirmative participation in the
crime charged and committed is sufficient to support a conviction. Sistrunk, 414 S.W.3d
at 597.

If he knew brown was going to enter the store with the intent of a strong arm robbery, then he could be charged for a strong arm robbery, even if he never touched the clerk or left with stolen items.

Once the crime has been established and the primary suspect is linked and meets all elements of the crime, any other persons participating in the crime do not have to meet every single element of the crime in order to violate the statute.

They are not being charged as an accomplice to the crime, they are being charged with the crime itself.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Um...I don't get how you think I disagree with your post? I only pointed out there Is an accomplice statute, where previously you said there wasn't.

Otherwise, it doesn't appear we disagree at all.

See here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Xcathdra

Um...I don't get how you think I disagree with your post? I only pointed out there Is an accomplice statute, where previously you said there wasn't.

Otherwise, it doesn't appear we disagree at all.

See here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

MO does not have an accomplice statute. It used to but has been removed and replaced. The statute must specifically state the accomplice portion and to my knowledge I don't think I have ever seen a criminal statute with accomplice references in it. If you and a friend decide to go kill someone, and you drive the car while your friend shoots the person, you are not charged as an accomplice. You can be charged with the murder itself, even if you did not pull the trigger.

a reply to: loam
Now that I have looked at your argument more carefully, I'll say this:
I am and have been really tired. Stupid earthquakes breaking my stuff and waking me up after 3hr of sleep.

What I meant with regard to misprison was not "lied" but "concealed" and have stated so in past posts regarding this, like the thread I previously linked twice. That was an slip-up on my part.

This is the Missouri statute that the case refers to (in a round about manner):

491.074. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law to the contrary, a prior inconsistent statement of any witness testifying in the trial of a criminal offense shall be received as substantive evidence, and the party offering the prior inconsistent statement may argue the truth of such statement.

This substantive evidence is what ties into to the weird Missouri law regarding culpability:

562.041. 1. A person is criminally responsible for the conduct of another when
(2) Either before or during the commission of an offense with the purpose of promoting the commission of an offense, he aids or agrees to aid or attempts to aid such other person in planning, committing or attempting to commit the offense.

Perhaps it could be construed that he could be held guilty of something if his statements have been inconsistent - if he lied to the police about the robbery and then told the truth to the FBI - when he is a witness in a trial. That clearly hasn't happened yet, though it will. So, assuming he made inconsistent statements, in the future he could be convicted of committing a crime, I guess.

However, what you are suggesting is a hypothetical - that Johnson lied to the police in his initial statements.

What we actually know is this - the police said in the report that he was a suspected accomplice (the closed robbery case).
The Police Chief of Ferguson stated unequivocally and publicly that Johnson had committed no crime.

I'm not going to trust your hypothetical, and I have no reason to suspect that Chief Jackson is lying.

And I'm going to bed.