Wilson's Story Stands or Falls on the Sick Call and the Radio Dispatches

[alcibiades_mystery]

PART 1: MINOR--EPIPHANY--MAJOR

As I predicted early on, Wilson's version of events - his narrative - requires a two-fold structure. It absolutely requires, in other words, two encounters with Brown and Johnson. The first encounter must be for "blocking the street" (they weren't "jaywalking," as there was no signal) - a relatively minor irritant that hardly rises to the level of a ticket. The second encounter must be for the alleged robbery, the radio calls for the robbery - a fairly serious crime that would escalate the nature of the interaction severely. This two-fold structure of the narrative - call it Minor-Epiphany-Major - is necessary for reasons I'll set out below; it's also what had Police Chief Jackson tied up in knots, since he had to communicate NOT ONLY that 1) the initial encounter was NOT for the alleged robbery BUT ALSO that 2) the real confrontation had to do with the alleged robbery.

Why this two-fold structure of the narrative? Why is it necessary given the evidence?

1) Because he drove away then came back - Wilson's narrative has to deal with something that all the witnesses will report: he talked to Brown and Johnson, then drove away, then reversed right on to them hard, his door directly next to Brown. He can't get away from or deny this as a fact, so he needs an interpretation to explain it. The interpretation his team has selected is simple: he drove away because it was just a warning for blocking the street, then there was a SUDDEN RECOGNITION, then he reversed back for the alleged robbery / felony stop: MINOR-EPIPHANY-MAJOR. Notice that the other account of his returning (Johnson, the only other witness who can EXPLAIN the return) is that he was simply angry that they lipped off to him. The fact is: encounter, drive away, reverse hard. The two interpretations are 1) blocking traffic, recognize as suspects, felony stop and 2) "Get the fuck off the street" - "What the fuck did you say to me?"

2) Because the altercation at the car window cannot be for blocking traffic - Wilson's got another problem: a shot was apparently fired in his car in the course of an altercation with Brown. There will be a casing recovered and evidence of this shot inside his car. That's the fact; he needs an interpretation. The idea that Brown would initiate an escalation to that level over "blocking traffic" and whatever arguments ensued over that is, to put it mildly, a stretch. So Wilson's story needs the felony stop to explain the altercation at the car window, which was also reported by witnesses, and especially the fact that his firearm was in play at all. The two-fold structure of the narrative explains the altercation in a way favorable to Wilson: Brown was resisting a felony arrest on a robbery. Notice that the other version (Mr. Johnson's) explains the altercation as a furious Wilson grabbing Brown by the throat, then bringing out his sidearm, presumably to threaten Brown. Without knowledge of the alleged robbery, Wilson simply cannot plausibly explain the gunshot fired in his car.

3) Because he needs state of mind evidence to explain his behavior - The final facts that Wilson needs to explain are a) that he fired on a retreating Brown and b) Brown's dead body riddled with bullets from his gun. If the whole event derives from a furious Wilson harassing these two men over blocking traffic, he will go to prison. So he needs a different "state of mind" interpretation to explain those facts. While many have disputed that Wilson fired on Brown as he was running away, it is in multiple witnesses accounts, and the New York Times states unequivocally that law-enforcement has confirmed it with this line: "As Officer Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away. The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone, according to law enforcement officials". The final confrontation in which Brown is shot also needs state of mind evidence. If Wilson simply reversed on Brown and Johnson and got into a verbal altercation with them for blocking traffic, his state of mind is that of an abusive and angry officer. If, on the other hand, he had knowledge of the alleged robbery, his state of mind is of an officer making a felony stop. He needs the two-fold structure, the MINOR-EPIPHANY-MAJOR structure of the narrative.

Or his story falls apart.

In Part 2, appearing below later, I'll discuss why the sick call and the radio calls are central to Wilson's claim.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html

[Vattel]

1. Suppose we grant (for the sake of argument) everything Wilson "needs" according to this OP.

Isn't it still attempted murder to shooting at a fleeing suspect when there is no immediate threat to anyone of serious harm? This is a sincere question, because I am not sure what the answer is.

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. He can get around this in two ways, one of which I implied

You can shoot at a fleeing suspect if you suspect him or her to be a serious danger to the public. This usually requires that they be at least suspected of a violent felony. Wilson can claim two suspicions of a violent felony, but only if we believe his story:

1) The alleged robbery - Wilson can claim he knew that Brown was suspected of a strong arm robbery which, as Robbery 2, would be considered a violent felony. I'll come back to this point in Part 2, later.

2) Attempted murder of a police officer - Wilson will claim that Brown forced the gun on him and fired on him in his vehicle, and he was at that point suspected of an attempted murder of a police officer and therefore a grave danger to the public.

These will be the two elements of Wilson's narrative that explain his firing on a retreating Brown.

[el_bryanto]

6. Seems like that second one is questionable if you grant that he was running away

A good prosecution lawyer could certainly shoot holes in that narrative.

But then again I suppose we don't know that a good prosecution lawyer will be assigned.

Bryant

[Octoberfurst]

23. The Right's version of this.

I have gone to right-wing sites like Worldnetdaily and such to see what they have been saying about the Brown slaying. Of course they are ALL blaming Brown and claim the cop is innocent. The irony is that on the one hand they are saying "We need to wait for the facts before we judge this cop" but on the other hand they have already proclaimed Brown guilty.
According to the Right's scenario Brown committed "strong-armed robbery" at the store and was walking right down the middle of the road. Officer Wilson came along and ordered Brown and his friend off the street. Brown cursed at Wilson and continued walking down the middle of the road. At this point Wilson was informed via radio of the robbery and realized that Brown fit the description of the suspect. He threw his car into reverse to go back and talk to Brown. At this point Brown attacked officer Wilson, punching him in the face and trying to grab his gun. A fight ensued and a shot was fired. Brown then broke away and began running down the street. Wilson got out of his vehicle and ordered Brown to freeze. Brown then turns and runs BACK towards Wilson screaming profanities and saying he will kill him. It takes 6 rounds to stop Brown obviously because the kid was high on something---probably crack. The liberal media then sweeps in and automatically blames the White cop who was just protecting himself. Wilson is demonized while the "thug" Brown is made out to be a saint. Case closed.
Of course there is no evidence of any of that but the Right believes it like it were gospel truth. The kid had it coming! He attacked an officer for no reason! Wilson had "no choice" but to shoot him! I must admit the most eye-rolling part of their scenario is that Brown supposedly charged at Wilson who was aiming a gun at him. Yeah that makes sense. Run unarmed towards a cop who is pointing a gun at you and yell that you are going to kill him. The Right has already made Wilson out to be a hero---just like they did Zimmerman.

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. Law enforcement officials admit that Wilson fired on Brown as he ran away

That means that Wilson admitted this. They state that none of those shots hit. This is actually in line with Piaget Crenshaw's claim that Wilson was firing wildly and that bullets hit buildings.

Officials have never said how many shots were fired - information that they certainly have. We know of at least SEVEN (probably): One in the car, six that apparently hit Brown, at least one of those POSSIBLY from behind (the shot on the medial aspect of his right forearm). It's also possible that the shot in the car hit Brown indirectly.

How many missed?

[Vattel]

43. hmmm, if memory serves, SCOTUS ruled that a danger to the public is not enough.

There must be an immediate threat of serious harm. But I will have to check on that.

on edit: I checked and SCOTUS ruled in Tennessee v Garner that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." I don't see how Brown's being a suspect in an earlier robbery would amount to probable cause to believe that Brown posed a significant threat of death or serious bodily injury.

[avebury]

3. Your narrative misses one important point.

When the shooter came back around to confront the boys a second time it could have a simple matter of being pissed off that Brown might have lipped off at him (something that is not unheard of in teenagers).

The shooter's actions, once he comes back around, seems to be coming from a position of anger at being disrespected. This is evidenced by the fact that when he pulled up to the boys he was so close that he could not get his door open (to get out and tear them a new one I guess) because it bounced off of the victim. This is called the moveable item (i.e. the door) hitting the immoveable item (i.e. Brown who was a big kid). If the cop was not pissed off enough before, this probably ramped up the level of his anger.

At this point he grabs at the victim to pull him towards the car (which is stupid and shows a total lack of thought given the size of the victim). The victim, not being totally stupid tries to pull away from what has too look like a crazy white guy. The shooter, now determined that he is not going to let this black kid who has disrespected him get away reaches for his gun (and maybe deliberately or maybe by accident the gun goes off - the shooter comes across as an amateur and not a supposedly trained professional). At that point, the victim for sure is trying to get away from the shooter.

It would not be a surprise if the shooter's anger level continues to ratchet up as he gets out of his car and goes after the victim shooting one more time. Then when the victim turns around to give himself up, the shooter fires off a volley of shots that ultimately kills the victim.

Is the shooter injured? Possibly when the door bounced back on him. Possibly from a kickback from the gun when he fired it in an out of control fashion while within the patrol car. But is he injured seriously? Where is the proof? Pictures? X-Rays? Attending physician statement? If he was supposed to be seriously injured why was he allowed to drive himself away from the scene and thus be a danger not only to himself but to the publice (particularly in the injury was supposed to be tied on one eye which would have the potential to impaired vision)? Viewing the pictures and the vidoe of the scene the officer appears to have no visible injuries, is steady on his feet, shows no evidence of being in pain, the fellow officer with him makes no effort to examine any wound, no EMS is called to provide treatment, and on and on. Has the shooter been kept out of sight soley for his own protection or also because questions would rise out of the absence of any visible signs of injury? Remember in the case of George Zimmerman, they didn't waste any time releasing pictures of his alleged injuries. With the shooter - crickets.

One woman has already come forth and talked about her interaction with the shooter a while back and is sounds like he had a bad reputation with the locals. The statement by the Police Chief is interesting in what it does not say. He does not state that the officer had a clean record where it comes to citizen complaints or excessive force. Information omitted can be just as intersting as information put out there.

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. My description of the competing narratives does not miss that point at all

I state it explicitly, even in the same terms you do, here:

Notice that the other account of his returning (Johnson, the only other witness who can EXPLAIN the return) is that he was simply angry that they lipped off to him. The fact is: encounter, drive away, reverse hard. The two interpretations are 1) blocking traffic, recognize as suspects, felony stop and 2) "Get the fuck off the street" - "What the fuck did you say to me?"

What you're describing is essentially Dorian Johnson's testimony of the event, which is a perfectly plausible competing explanation of the facts we have.

My point is about demonstrating why Wilson needs to have a different interpretation / explanation of the facts.

[avebury]

7. My potential narrative derives from an analytical viewpoint, taking into concern

typical teenage behavior, a white person and/or adults sense of entitlement of "respect", psychology, and a huge dose of common sense. The shooter was seriously injured story is put out there under the assumption that people are stupid. It drives me nuts that the new media never asks the obvious questions or points out the obvious discrepancies with the Ferguson PD's narrative. The evidence dos not support their narrative and constantly changing the narrative doesn't help them sell theri lies.

Evidence being: photographic, video, shooter allowed to drive himself away from the scene, tampering with evidence (allowing the shooter to remove the patrol car from the scene when it should have been processed at the scene), removing the body in a polie SUV (I believe) instead of a cornor's vehicle, lack of gun residue on the victim, officer had no knowledge of the robbery let alone that Brown was a "suspect" and so on and so on.

If the Prosecutor throws this case under the bus there will never be any question in anyone's mind that he did so and was biased from the beginning. I have no respect for Claire McCaskill for taking the Prosecutor's side.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. I agree with you on every point

As I will show later, I don't find Wilson's argument to be very plausible.

[Lee-Lee]

8. My issue with this chain is that no officer I know will ever try to drag somebody into a car

through a window. I mean even in your first lessons you learn this isn't a fight you can ever, ever win- you are confined in the vehicle, the other person outside can land blows from out of the window to you and you can't do anything.

It goes against every bit of common sense. A fight through a window is a losing fight for the person inside every time unless you drive away, the person outside has the advantage.

[cleduc]

10. "A fight through a window is a losing fight for the person inside every time "

Not every time ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5404941

I fought the law ... and the law lost



If the officer had done what I did, he may well have apprehended Brown without loss of life.

I quickly obtained an advantage because my two arms overpowered his one arm - that happened to be on the side of his holster.

BTW, I don't recommend my behavior. It could have easily turned out badly. But that cop was clearly out of line, assaulted me with zero provocation and went too far with someone who could take care of themselves.

[Cha]

46. You were lucky, cleduc.. thanks for the story.

[GliderGuider]

12. That's why I suspect roid rage or something like it.

There had to be another factor involved, for the LEO do something that stupid.

[Lee-Lee]

17. Or it didn't go down that way

as much as many want to make the officer out to be the aggressor, keep an open mind that it could have been the other way as well.

It isn't inconceivable that someone just caught on video being violent and aggressive with a store clerk could have been with an officer.

Just keep an open mind. I know some have said saying that makes me a racist troll, but as liberals we have to be open to any idea even if we don't like where it goes.

[GliderGuider]

32. Some have said that have they?

Just keep an open mind that maybe they're right.

Nothing justifies putting six bullets into an unarmed man. Nothing.

[IdaBriggs]

5. Brilliant post - kick and recommend!

[KittyWampus]

11. Why would an office be grabbing any "suspect" through the car window though?

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. I don't believe an officer attempting to effect a felony arrest WOULD do that

That doesn't mean that Wilson DIDN'T do that, though.

I also don't believe that an officer effecting a felony arrest would pull up next to the suspects the way Wilson did.

More on both these points later.

[KittyWampus]

14. I appreciate your objective analysis. Is it in your Journal?

[GoneFishin]

15. Pretty concise analysis. I believe his state of mind would have been explained by a steroid test on

Wilson. But of course they decided instead to test the dead body because their real focus was looking for ways to smear the corpse rather than prosecute the murder.

[ReRe]

16. Absolutely....

... we don't know shit yet. That was one of the first things I wanted to hear about: Dispatch. Not to mention the calls that came into the HQ since Aug 9th.

Might Wilson have gotten his black eye from his previous call? And WTF is a "sick" call?

So many missing puzzle pieces!

[ColesCountyDem]

18. A 'sick call' is just wha it sounds like.

In most communities, including mine, LEO's routinely respond to ambulance calls, where they can do any number of things (traffic control, e.g.), including providing lifting assistance to the EMT's.

[ReRe]

20. Well, I was unfamiliar with that term...

... looks to me like a waste of time and resources. That is not required in my state. The EMT comes and that's it. Now, I imagine if there was knowledge that a crime might have occurred, the police would come too. Thanks for the info.

[ColesCountyDem]

22. You're welcome.

I think that it somewhat depends on where you live, whether LEO's do this or not. It's quite common here.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. Wilson was about a 1 minute drive away from the shooting answering a sick call

about a 2 month old infant whose mother was concerned was not breathing when she coughed. No ambulance was called, so it was likely just a new mother panicking. It was in the released incident report. Wilson was on that call from approximately 11:48 to 12:00:07. The call was on Glenark Drive, which is in the same "subdivision" as the Canfield Green apartments, about a 5 minute walk to the east. There are only four or five apparent addresses on the little street, so it should be easy enough to confirm the location and interaction. The call to 911 was made by cellphone; the name of the caller is illegible, but seems to end in "intell" (presumably a woman named something like "Chantelle&quot .

More on this when I have the time for a fuller post. Sorry for the episodic nature of these posts.

[ReRe]

21. Hey...

... you're doing super! Don't work yourself to death too much there. Stop and have a drink.

[blackspade]

25. One issue with the 'Wilson Narrative' is the 'robbery'

From all accounts I have seen, Brown paid for his cigars but was angry that he didn't have money for more.
The store apparently never called it in, so how could Wilson have heard about it?

If this is erroneous info LMK.

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. There are objective radio logs of three calls on the alleged robbery

They went out at 11:51, 11:57, and 11:58.

The alleged robbery was definitely called into 911, and there were two other cops canvasing the area for the suspects at the time of the shooting. That's fact, and indisputable.

[blackspade]

33. good to know

A post I saw the other day disputed the fact that there was a robbery.

Do you have a link to this info?

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. Ferguson Market and Liquor has their lawyer saying that they didn't report it

It's a parsing of words: no employee of the store called in the 911 call. A customer apparently called it in. That 911 call resulted in the first radio dispatch at 11:51. When the first police officer arrived minutes later, an employee of the store did pointed in the direction where the two men walked. An employee then gave the officer a fuller description of Michael Brown, which the officer then put on the radio at 11:57 and 11:58.

When the investigator came to interview FM & L employees (or owner) later that week, the investigator checked the box for "Willing to Press Charges."

[blackspade]

35. Where is the call time info coming from?

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. The call time info is coming from the police logs in the PDF release of incident reports

Specifically, p. 15 of this PDF release: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/08/15/ferguson-police-report.pdf

The logs would appear to be the computerized entries on the responding cruisers. The initial description was actually entered at 11:52:53, not 11:51 as I previously noted. You can see the computerized log of Notes added at the same time that the description went in from the officer on scene: 11:57:47 and 11:58:04 (he added the shorts).

Presumably, there are matching logs at 911 for the initial call, but they don't have to release dispatches or 911 logs until the investigation is considered completed.

[blackspade]

37. The PD timeline seems off

the incident took place over the course of 1:02 minutes.

Now, it is not clear when Brown and Johnson entered the store, but it appears that they left at 11:54.
What I don't understand is the timeline of the PD involvement and how it relates to Brown's shooting..

[alcibiades_mystery]

38. I don't believe that the surveillance camera was synched to real time

The police computer logs are linked to a network and therefore more reliably synched than the store's surveillance system, which could have been set wrong, could get off by a few minutes as these things tend to do, could have had errors introduced through re settings for DST, etc.

We know for a near certainty that the shooting happened around 12:01-12:03. If the two men left at 11:54, they would have had to be moving pretty fast to get back to Canfield Green by then. I think they left the store at 11:51 and the surveillance camera is just set two minutes fast.

[blackspade]

41. But the time sync is pure speculation at this point.

Brown and Johnson would have had to cover almost a half mile in 7 or less minutes.
And they were walking when Wilson came upon them.

There is just something off about the time frame. talking to the witnesses to the robbery, getting in and out of the car, driving up and down Florissant..... Something stinks about the PD story.

[alcibiades_mystery]

42. I should be clear on some assumptions here

I assume that it is, in fact, Brown and Johnson at Ferguson Market and Liquor. I also assume that the police log times are accurate. I assume that it took Brown and Johnson about 10 minutes to walk the distance between FM&L and the scene of the shooting. I also assume that the timelines provided by the two officers who responded to the alleged robbery are accurate. In other words, I don't see any problem in an officer driving up Florissant as far as the QT, then driving back to the corner of Florissant and Ferguson, talking to a witness, and radioing in the second description, all in 5 minutes. I'm going to assume those time stamps haven't been tampered with for further posts here. But I'm happy to list those as assumptions.

[KJG52]

26. Assumptions not in Evidence

Your argument is, on its face, full of assumptions of "fact," not in evidence. The "report," of the strong arm robbery was so general, that any "large black man," could have been the person. There is no record of a general radio call or computer alert being given by the Ferguson PD of a "dangerous," robber on the loose. Police are not trained to apprehend dangerous criminals by backing up to them, grabbing them through the window of a police car, getting into an altercation with the suspect and then as they leave, unarmed, shoot them in the street. By the way, while all this nonsense was going on, where was his partner? This whole story is so full of holes it would make a nice Swiss cheese.

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. I will get to each of those points

In any case, I am not writing what I think happened, but what Wilson's narrative seems to be and why he needs it to work that way based on the facts we know.

[gordianot]

28. This is what I was looking for. What if he simply pleads the 5th no report?

That would force the court and prosecution to come up with an explanation ( also greatly limit his defense).

At some point his story stands or falls apart. The Times article is great.

[alcibiades_mystery]

30. He was interviewed by authorities

He has provided a version of events that can be used against him. Supposing they Mirandized him, of course.

[gordianot]

31. Wonder if he actually fullfilled job obligation and wrote a report? one further possibility

Story I hear Ferguson requires and rewards officers for arrests they routinely warrents on short term follow up. They have what sounds like a quota system and Police are required to produce like piece work. In the Law enforcement community there is a reputation that Ferguson is a place to avoid.

Hence Jay Walking and Cigar theft becomes a major opportunity for Officer Wilson.

[gvstn]

39. I'm not sure he can.

I heard an ex-cop on tv say that it would be usual for an officer involved in a shooting to give a statement/incident report up until the time of the shooting. He can then use the 5th to not talk about the shooting but he has to explain the initial encounter. I can't remember all the details but there are essentially two types of statements, one would be for a criminal investigation of the officer--so here he could take the 5th, and the other would be an incident report pertaining to his duties where he has to explain the stop but doesn't have to go into details of the shooting if his lawyer recommends he stay silent.

[gordianot]

40. The FOI Monday there was no Officer report release

He was interviewed and now this is going to the Grand Jury so who knows? The Prosecutor said yesterday Wilson could offer testimony to the Grand Jury. Why would the Prosecutor offer that before Wilson meets with the Grand Jury? No one seems to know anything especially when they get in front of cameras.

[alcibiades_mystery]

44. Part 2a: Orienting - The Time and Place of the Killing

I can't really get to a longer version right now, but I want to follow upon points made earlier, which i hope to do in a post tomorrow.

In the meanwhile, I'm providing the following timeline and map to help orient the post I'll put up tomorrow.

[img][/img]


[img][/img]

[Uncle Joe]

45. You do good work, alcibiades_mystery.

Thanks for the thread.

[alcibiades_mystery]

48. Thank you!

[Cha]

47. Mahalo for all your analysis on what is being reported so far.. alcibiades_mystery