Darren Wilson Breaks His Silence: I'm Sorry, And I Would Shoot Michael Brown Again

A Grand Jury heard testimony for quite a long time. They deliberated. And they came to a result. Yes.. there were 9 white jurors and 3 black. What does that matter? Does it mean Brown should have an all black jury because he is himself black? Wouldn't THAT be considered unfair to Wilson? What would have been "fair"? I haven't heard a single thing from these protestors. What would THEY have called a fair trial? Dragging this out for months on end and costing their community millions in a murder trial only to come to the exact same conclusion? Facts are facts. Evidence doesn't lie.

As far as black -vs- white... the only ones making this a racial issue are the media, and those with an agenda. Yep.. Wilson is white. Yep.. Brown was black. So what? Wilson has ZERO record of problems over 7 years on the force in Ferguson. ZERO. It wasn't a racial issue to him. It was a matter of a big guy resisting arrest and attempting to charge down a much smaller officer. Lethal force was used. In St. Louis (which governs Ferguson), the LAW states a police officer has the right to use deadly force if he believes his life is in danger, even if no real danger exists. Police are also automatically authorized to use deadly force if a suspect tries to grab an officers gun. As far as the evidence is concerned, Brown did both. Don't like these rules? Take it up with the Supreme Court. Burning down your local McDonalds is not going to change things.

Ask yourself this. If Brown was a white man... would we be having this discussion? If Wilson was black? No... we wouldn't. We hear NOTHING of Dillan Taylor... the white kid killed by (a non-white) police officer in Utah only 2 days after Brown. Why? Because there is no story there. The media can't drain it for everything its worth. The media can't stir up racial tensions.

Are there problems with Police violence? Yes. But you don't dump the bigger problem on Wilsons shoulders. That is BS. You don't hear the truth in the media. Is there white on black violence? Yes.. but no where NEAR what they would have you believe. Here are some FACTS. In 2012 the FBI found that of the 2,648 black murder victims, some 2,412 were killed by other blacks and only 193 by whites. Whites also were far more likely to be killed by fellow whites than by members of other races, according to the data.

But again that doesn't translate to media coverage. I think the rioting and looting is nonsense. What are you proving by doing this? How are you honoring Brown's memory by burning down your own community? You're not. But of course, who is there 24/7 with their cameras. Showing the world the nonsense? Yup.. our good old media.

Here is the bottom line. The jury decided. The case is closed. End of story.

I would like to add the following. The media has bent over backwards to portray Michael Brown as a poor, innocent 18-year old college bound boy. He was anything but. Here is a peak at his criminal record:

Description: Burglary 1st Degree [Felony B RSMo: 569.160]

Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 1401000
OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD

Next Charge/Judgment

Description: Armed Criminal Action [Felony Unclassified RSMo: 571.015]
Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 3101000
OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD

Next Charge/Judgment

Description: Assault 1st Degree Serious Physical Injury [Felony A RSMo: 565.050]
Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 1301100
OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD

Next Charge/Judgment

Description: Armed Criminal Action [Felony Unclassified RSMo: 571.015]
Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 3101000
OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST. ANN PD
Read more at www.snopes.com...

He also has a sealed juvenile record. But the media... the spin doctors that they are, are trying to portray Brown just like they did with Martin.

a reply to: DerekJR321

He wasn't a good kid but the media uses that, I agree. All the blame isn't on Wilson, it's on Brown. But this situation has just added fuel to a fire that's been burning for a while, "racial inequality", "profiling", "shooting unarmed people", etc, etc, etc.

Nothing good will come out of this, people will riot, the ones in charge will respond even harder and the people will lose more rights. Also being divided even further, the tension will increase. G--reat, just what this country needs.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: deadeyedick

it was just murder to chase him down and gun him down without backup that was on the way.

Except that's not what happened, is it?



The officer pursued the suspect so he wouldn't get away before he could be arrested.



The suspect decided that he didn't like being pursued so he tried to attack the officer.



The officer shot him but he still kept coming so the officer killed him to stop the threat.



There are many points where Michael Brown could have ended the altercation: initially when confronted by Wilson, after he was first shot by Wilson at the vehicle, after Wilson pursued him and told him to stop, after Wilson shot him in the arm... but he didn't. He made it clear that nothing was going to stop him from assaulting Darren Wilson and that's why he's dead.

but wilson was supposedly injured during this and logic tells one that a pursuit would have ended poorly either way givin what had already happened. one of them would end up dead and that was what he was wanting. by his actions.
again is it procedure to pursue a suspect that has injured you when you are alone and help is on the way? no it is not.

the officer should have never pursued and should be tried for doing so givin the claims of brown being armed and dangerous because he was big. tell me what in wilsons mind let him think he could handle this alone and he should chase him. he wanted brown dead and i have heard no claims of commands givin for brown to stop before he was killed.

i have to post this pic again because first wilson says he didnt know whether he would survive another hit like that from brown.....


from wilsons interview :

Brown unleashed another punch and struck the officer in his face, Wilson said. "How do I survive," Wilson recalled thinking. "I didn't know if I'd be able to survive another hit like that."

edition.cnn.com...
so if he was really hit hard he has nothing to show for it

Perhaps some context would be helpful. Using what information we know from the transcripts, Google Earth, and crime scene photos from the site below, here's some positioning on where things were.
***WARNING - THIS SITE SHOWS SOME GRAPHIC IMAGES***
New Ferguson Crime Scene Photos: Blood, Bullets & Body
***WARNING - THIS SITE SHOWS SOME GRAPHIC IMAGES***


Does this fit Wilson's story well? Seems to me that it was Wilson mostly running at Brown if Brown ended up 10 feet away from Wilson when he died.

E: Additionally, here is the audio from the shooting (the first two shots were not captured, but the remaining 10 were):

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Yes.

Getting punched in the face by a 300 pound man would typically leave a much more noticable impression. Ever seen a boxing match? Ever been in a street fight? Punches, bare knuckle especially, don't leave slight red marks on the face. They leave gashes, massive bruises, or in many cases broken facial bones.

Those images don't look like an injury sustained from a punch.

a reply to: AnonyMason

Those images don't look like an injury sustained from a punch.

exactly....we keep hearing about how brown was a big powerful brute......something does not add up with officer wilsons story.....

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

And Wilson himself is 6'4.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

And Wilson himself is 6'4.

and your point would be ?

What strikes me is the lack of competence in the investigation in the first place. Like, something that should have been tested does not seem to have been looked at in the first autopsy done by the country was gunshot residue. When I had heard earlier reports when the incident was first being investigated, they mention no gun shot residue was found on his body. However, this was done by the family autopsy after his body had already been processed for burial, so I don't consider it as thorough as the first one that should have been done. His clothes were not tested. And nothing I have seen from the first autopsy suggests any was either tested for, or found. Since GSR can travel about 3-5 feet, if brown was shot at very close range as suggested, he should have something, especially as many times as he was shot. Also, I don't see anything about his clothes being tested, either, which should have been bagged and totally examined.

The presence or lack of GSR would have cleared up a number of questions, though not all. It still doesn't explain the headwound or body distance from the vehicle.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

He makes himself out to be a small man, he's not.

originally posted by: Gryphon66


In 2013, the Ferguson Police Department made 5,384 stops and 611 searches. 86 percent of the stops and 92 percent of the searches were of black people. Only 67 percent of the town's population is black.

How does that really prove anything?

Are you suppose to count who you stop by their skin color, and keep an even count?

Even though one group may be more actively disrupted then the other?

a reply to: Kali74

thankyou for the clarification.......

originally posted by: mwood

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: onequestion
Someone sway my opinion please.

He has to say that. Otherwise, he'd be admitting to making a mistake and murdering an innocent citizen. Who cares what he thinks or says? He's a racist murderer, IMO.

So all the evidence that the grand jury went over (which I assume you have read) didn't prove to you that it was not a racist murder and was justified?

Was the evidence lies? I am curious how when faced with the facts of the case you still insist he was in the wrong?

Do you know something everybody else don't or are you just too stubborn to accept what happened?

Your somewhat confusing* claim is in bold. Your claim is that the "evidence" proved that it was not a "racist murder and was justified."

So, yes, you did make the claim; I asked for your evidence as in what way the forensics "proved that it was not a racist murder"?

Did you have anything to share, or did you just want to keep trying to muddy the water demanding evidence from me for a claim I didn't make?

*Double negatives are seriously flawed, grammatically speaking.

a reply to: Annee

All the data proves is that the percentage of traffic stops and vehicle searches were considerably higher than the incidence of blacks per capita in Ferguson.

Combined with other facts, like the MO Attorney General's investigation and findings, a fairly clear pattern of behavior can be demonstrated on the part of specific individuals (the Ferguson police dept.) (I mention that because another poster spuriously suggested that was "profiling" ... it's hardly profiling when specific actions are traced to specific individuals.

That is called "muddying the water" though ... very common for some postings on this thread.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Shouldn't matter weather it was racist or not. If it wasn't a cop who killed Mike Brown, under the same circumstances, that person would have been arrested and charged with murder.

originally posted by: AnonyMason
a reply to: Gryphon66

Shouldn't matter weather it was racist or not. If it wasn't a cop who killed Mike Brown, under the same circumstances, that person would have been arrested and charged with murder.

I don't disagree with you at all, Anony ...

Posters above are trying to, literally, whitewash the known facts, however.

There were no racial tensions in Ferguson, repeat after me.

/sadness

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

He may have thought if the next punch knocked him out, then Brown would have his gun.

What really struck me about this interview was when he said "I asked myself if I could shoot him"

Or some such similar. Then he qualified it to mean, legally.

If he had time to wonder or worry about that, the answer was likely no. If his life was truly in danger, he would not have stopped to ask himself that question.

He was looking for justification to shoot Brown, IMHO.

a reply to: kosmicjack

I noticed he was always looking down when he talked, through the entire interview.

Does anyone know the timeline of Wilson's statement to police versus the collection of crime scene data? Because his account seems specifically mirrored to the forensics data and yet wildly varied from multiple witness accounts. Just seems somewhat orchestrated or manipulated. Was he left out there for four and a half hours while they concocted this tale?