A Witness Conversation Unknowingly Captured at the Scene of the Ferguson Shooting is a Game-Changer

A previously unnoticed detail in a background conversion of a video taken minutes after the Ferguson shooting could change the course of the investigation into Mike Brown’s death.

The original video poster appears sympathetic to the narrative that Mike Brown was shot unarmed with his hands in the air. But he unknowingly picks up conversation between a man who saw the altercation and another neighbor.

A Witness Conversation Unknowingly Captured at the Scene of the Ferguson Shooting is a Game-Changer

WARNING: Shows the body on the ground, though at a distance. What is really telling, is that the witness account in the video supports the police version of the story (i.e. that the suspect/shooting victim charged the police officer while he had his gun drawn on the suspect).

Another snippet from the article:

This is terribly important because if Mike Brown had been shot, and he advanced towards the cop instead of surrendering, it would substantiate the narrative that the policeman shot in self-defense due to the fact that he was being threatened with severe bodily harm.

a reply to: Gazrok

Then why not shoot him in the legs?

Interesting find. I saw that video too and hadn't noticed.

#2 The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him

Can be taken either way. Who is "he"?. Might be the policeman kept coming at him

This is clearly the first piece of anything close to being there.

There will be no local indictment.

But, Mr. Holder will probably charge the cop with putting his face in front of his fist.

This is the same guy who robbed the store and intimidated the owner. he was a big guy and probably had done this all the time. i big and bad and im gonna rob - do what i want and there is not a dam thing your are going to do about it!! that seemed like his attidtude by the store video. he was not afraid to do what he did and had no problem with it. well in the society we live in you cant be going around doing this sort of things because you will find someone bigger and badder than you. Well he ran into the police and this is the result. if they didnt shoot him then another store owner with a gun would have. once again this young man is not that inncocent. There my be a problem with police brutality and beating in Ferguson or all over the country for that matter but i hope that box of cigarettes was worth it.

I've been saying that too.
You'll get the most inhumane pro police responses so be prepared.

a reply to: flammadraco

a reply to: violet

There was a thread about this video earlier.

If you listen to the video yourself, the transcript appears to be wrong in a few points.

There's some discussion about this here.

I highly recommend listening to the video yourself. This line from the transcript is really problematic:

The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him

I've listened to it a few dozen times and I didn't get that at all. It sounded something more like:

"but he was like (pissed off on him?), dumpin' at him."

a reply to: Gazrok

Entering well into supposition mode here: If he put his hands up and was subsequently shot, then upon understanding the cop intended to murder him he had every right to rush the cop.

I' pretty sure I would react the same way.

Self-defense and mutual aid of citizens suffering from police abuse is coming. Write that down.

The Police NEVER shoot to wound.They shoot to kill!! and thats the way it is.If you get wounded that is because there are a bad shot. In Pico Rivera California a Sheriff shot a 54yr old man recently in the head and chest in his own home. Sheriff thought he was a suspect they where chasing. keep in mind the suspect was young bald and covered in tattoos and the innocent victim was a old man that did not look nothing lie the suspect. dont mean to go off topic but thing like happen all the time. i just think Ferguson is not prepared to deal with these kind of situations.

a reply to: flammadraco

Then why not shoot him in the legs?

Police and military are trained to aim for centre mass. Anything else increases the risk of hitting people in the background, stray bullets going who knows where, and not stopping whatever is coming at you.

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: flammadraco

Then why not shoot him in the legs?

Police and military are trained to aim for centre mass. Anything else increases the risk of hitting people in the background, stray bullets going who knows where, and not stopping whatever is coming at you.

Then surely with that logic only one bullet should have been fired and the other 5 or 6 were bad marksmanship and as such the officer perhaps should not have a weapon in the first place?

EDIT - do the US police not have tasers? Why was this not used?

originally posted by: flammadraco

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: flammadraco

Then why not shoot him in the legs?

Police and military are trained to aim for centre mass. Anything else increases the risk of hitting people in the background, stray bullets going who knows where, and not stopping whatever is coming at you.

Then surely with that logic only one bullet should have been fired and the other 5 or 6 were bad marksmanship and as such the officer perhaps should not have a weapon in the first place?

EDIT - do the US police not have tasers? Why was this not used?

That logic may work with someone that doesn't have a broken orbital bone and was just attacked by the suspect. He might have tried to aim center mass. The bullet paths work out perfectly for muzzle rise with rapid succession of shots. He may have had to fire a few to get him to stop since he may not have been able to see well with his eye in the condition it was.

Let's not forget that the deceased friend with him was crouched down behind a car and would not have had a clear view of the events all the way through. A quick glance at the situation could have givin him a false understanding of the events.

originally posted by: flammadraco

originally porsted by: boncho
a reply to: flammadraco

Then why not shoot him in the legs?

Police and military are trained to aim for centre mass. Anything else increases the risk of hitting people in the background, stray bullets going who knows where, and not stopping whatever is coming at you.

Then surely with that logic only one bullet should have been fired and the other 5 or 6 were bad marksmanship and as such the officer perhaps should not have a weapon in the first place?

EDIT - do the US police not have tasers? Why was this not used?

Rule number 2. Double tap...
Sounds mean but that's the way it is.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

That's if one believes he had a fractured orbital socket. Does not seem to be in much pain in the video after Brown was shot. When we look at the video and we see Wilson explaining what happened to a fellow officer, not once does he point to his "Orbital Fracture" injury. Surely if you were explaining an incident, you would point to your eye and say "he got me in the eye".

Then the female officer also shows no attention to any injury on Wilson. If I was the attending officer and saw my fellow officers eye socket swollen, I would have pointed to the eye and said "what's up with your eye".

We don't know what really happened at the moment, but with all the other Police Brutality cases in the States, perhaps this is the one that will "Break the Camels Back" even if it is for the wrong reason.

a reply to: Gazrok

Listen to what person #1 says at 1:14-1:16 repeatedly. About 10-15 times quickly. I'm about 99.999% sure I can make out what he says and if I'm right, well...

I don't want to say what I think he says risking bias. What do you hear?

Please direct your comments to this ongoing thread.

BREAKING: New Video Proves Michel Brown Attacked Officer Darren Wilson