Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SunsetDreams

(8,571 posts)
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 12:15 PM Nov 2014

Did Darren Wilson call for backup?

There is so much that I am not understanding. I plan on going over the entire evidence that is available in this case as time allows. I have to work today

If there was an altercation in the car and Michael Brown ran away after having been shot by Wilson (as evidenced by the drops of blood)...was there a call for backup that Darren Wilson made to dispatch?

It seems to me that if you were in fear for your life and had just shot someone and they were running away...you would call for backup. Does anyone know if he did?

My understanding is there were two shots in or around the patrol car, why did he need to shoot 10 more times at an unarmed person? That seems like excessive force to me.


49 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Did Darren Wilson call for backup? (Original Post) SunsetDreams Nov 2014 OP
Yes- he called for another car right when he first encountered them Lee-Lee Nov 2014 #1
Why did the Police Chief say that Wilson did not know about the Convenient store incident when he sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #3
exactly Sabrina! SunsetDreams Nov 2014 #5
Lying or wrong; the dispatch call times are pretty conclusive there (nt) Recursion Nov 2014 #7
Why would the chief lie, and did he not have access to those dispatch calls, days after the killing sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #13
I don't remember his exact statement. Recursion Nov 2014 #14
Well, his statement was pretty clear. It was issued on the day that the cop's name was released. sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #20
the chief is about as credible as Baghdad Bob Taitertots Nov 2014 #28
What does that mean? Are you saying the Chief was lying to defend Brown?? Could you be more sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #30
No. Intentionally misrepresenting facts to defend Wilson Taitertots Nov 2014 #31
Wilson says he stopped Brown because of the Convenience Store robbery, at least according to the sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #36
Ok but did he call again? SunsetDreams Nov 2014 #4
According to McCullough last night, that backup car was there seconds later Travelman Nov 2014 #17
i'm not sure i believe that this was done samsingh Nov 2014 #10
Could you post a link to this dispatch information...I haven't seen it anywhere alcibiades_mystery Nov 2014 #33
I don't know where to find an audio, but here's a link to a written account. herding cats Nov 2014 #39
I'm interested in the audio tapes Lee-Lee claims to have been listening to alcibiades_mystery Nov 2014 #40
Here is one source- I had found a raw version but am not seeing it now- Lee-Lee Nov 2014 #49
Here's the "Radio Traffic" document from the Grand Jury fishwax Nov 2014 #48
You are correct Lee-Lee Boudica the Lyoness Nov 2014 #42
No, according to his narrative he called for backup after they backtalked him fishwax Nov 2014 #47
Yes. AFAIK that's uncontested and recorded Recursion Nov 2014 #2
Thanks Recursion. SunsetDreams Nov 2014 #6
He testified he did make another call on the car radio , but it was somehow on the wrong channel. pkdu Nov 2014 #9
He did - but like Zimmerman he didn't TBF Nov 2014 #8
He was assaulted in the car. Travis_0004 Nov 2014 #11
OK, why isn't THIS body (graphic warning) TBF Nov 2014 #12
Had there been a prosecutor present in the GJ room, that is a question that would have been asked. sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #15
There wasn't one prosecutor in the room. There were two. Travelman Nov 2014 #19
Yes, but who were they trying to prosecute? They did get an indictment, of Brown. sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #21
Or, the evidence simply didn't stack up enough to convince the grand jury to indict Travelman Nov 2014 #26
What did they spend a lot of time looking at? Was there any cross examination of sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #27
The spent a lot of time looking at evidence and testimony Travelman Nov 2014 #34
People aren't 'assuming' that a GJ indictment is an automatic thing. GJs are a tool for the sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #37
Well see, Michael Brown looked "demonic" and charged at Wilson full on justiceischeap Nov 2014 #18
Sure - Trayvon was demonic also. TBF Nov 2014 #23
Runs to get my Starburst (not skittles). nt justiceischeap Nov 2014 #25
did you see his injuries? Yeah, me neither . bettyellen Nov 2014 #16
he's not required to have any injuries TorchTheWitch Nov 2014 #22
When he lies and says he feels he is "near death" to the GJ, it should have damaged his credibility bettyellen Nov 2014 #24
Since when does a teenager have to die for walking down the middle of the street? sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #29
When did Wilson take out his gun, and why? JoePhilly Nov 2014 #32
Ding ding ding alcibiades_mystery Nov 2014 #35
I think he was going to ... JoePhilly Nov 2014 #43
This was in the many pages of documents released. logosoco Nov 2014 #38
I haven't had a chance to read it all, but I will. JoePhilly Nov 2014 #44
I think you're right. logosoco Nov 2014 #45
What about Johnson? FormerOstrich Nov 2014 #41
According to his testimony he called for backup at the beginning of the encounter, and then in the Erose999 Nov 2014 #46
 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
1. Yes- he called for another car right when he first encountered them
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 12:17 PM
Nov 2014

Before any physical altercation had occurred.

From listing to dispatch tapes it sounds like he called for backup as soon as he realized they might be the robbery suspects.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
3. Why did the Police Chief say that Wilson did not know about the Convenient store incident when he
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 12:23 PM
Nov 2014

stopped Brown? Was the Chief lying?

SunsetDreams

(8,571 posts)
5. exactly Sabrina!
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 12:26 PM
Nov 2014

I had heard that as well, he did not yet know about the robbery when he stopped him. He thought they were jaywalking and had asked them to move to the sidewalk. (They were walking down the middle of the street)

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
13. Why would the chief lie, and did he not have access to those dispatch calls, days after the killing
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 12:49 PM
Nov 2014

of Brown? I would think the Chief would want to connect that incident to the killing in order to 'explain' why they were stopped in the first place. But instead he stated that Wilson had not received that information at the time he stopped Brown.

Has he retracted that statement?

Airc, his statement said that Wilson did not have that information at the INITIAL contact he had with Brown.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
14. I don't remember his exact statement.
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 12:51 PM
Nov 2014
Airc, his statement said that Wilson did not have that information at the INITIAL contact he had with Brown.

AFAIK that's what the testimony and dispatch logs more or less agreed with.

1. Initial contact about walking in the street
2. Dispatch call
3. Call for backup
4. Shooting in the car
5. Shooting outside the car

I don't know that there's any serious challenge to that order of things?

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
20. Well, his statement was pretty clear. It was issued on the day that the cop's name was released.
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 01:08 PM
Nov 2014

The cops also released the video from the store showing Brown in some kind of altercation, minor it appeared to me. Asked if THAT was the reason why Brown was stopped, the Chief admitted that it was not.

Ferguson Chief Officer Didn't Stop Brown as Robbery Suspect

Ferguson, Missouri (CNN) -- The Ferguson police officer who shot Michael Brown didn't stop him because he was suspected in a convenience-store robbery, but because he was "walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic," the city's police chief said Friday

Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson -- hours after documents came out labeling the 18-year-old Brown as the "primary suspect" in the store theft -- told reporters the "robbery does not relate to the initial contact between the officer and Michael Brown."
So why did Ferguson police opt to release surveillance video of the convenience-store incident Friday -- the same day they named, six days after the shooting, the white police officer who fatally shot the African-American teenager -- if the two situations aren't related?


Why didn't the store owner report a robbery? And has there been an investigation into that incident? I saw cigars being picked up off the floor and returned to the clerk before Brown left the store. It didn't look like a robbery from the video I saw, more like an argument over the purchase.

So why are the talking heads on TV claiming that Wilson did stop Brown because of the 'robbery'? Almost all of them are claiming that was the reason Wilson stopped him in the first place.

But we are talking about the MSM I suppose.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
30. What does that mean? Are you saying the Chief was lying to defend Brown?? Could you be more
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 02:04 PM
Nov 2014

specific as to why you think the Ferguson PC would want to cause damage to Wilson and defend Brown?

My recollection of him was he was defending Wilson, and actually tried to harm Brown by releasing video in order to distract from the release of Wilson's name.

But you appear to know something I don't know, so could you explain it please?

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
36. Wilson says he stopped Brown because of the Convenience Store robbery, at least according to the
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 02:18 PM
Nov 2014

reports of the GJ results. The Chief says, no, Wilson didn't know about that in his initial contact with Brown. How would he be helping Brown by saying that?

Actually, he was hoping no one would ask him I suppose, if the video he decided to release that day to make Brown look bad, was the reason why Wilson stopped Brown. But they did ask, and he said 'no, that was not the reason'. But now we are told it WAS the reason.

So which is true, I imagine, which was my point, that the Chief was telling the truth and that the store incident was not known to Wilson when he first stopped Brown.

SunsetDreams

(8,571 posts)
4. Ok but did he call again?
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 12:23 PM
Nov 2014

after he supposedly HAD to shoot someone for the altercation? Would there not be another call?

Travelman

(708 posts)
17. According to McCullough last night, that backup car was there seconds later
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 12:55 PM
Nov 2014

According to [url=http://www.stltoday.com/news/multimedia/special/darren-wilson-s-radio-calls-show-fatal-encounter-was-brief/html_79c17aed-0dbe-514d-ba32-bad908056790.html]this article[/url], he did in fact call for an ambulance:


At 12:02 p.m., Wilson says, “21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car.” His call triggered at least two officers to head his way, including one who said he was close to Wilson.

~ snip ~

Wilson has told authorities that he called, “Shots fired, send all cars,” on his radio, but during the struggle his radio had been jarred and the channel changed.

The Post-Dispatch reviewed radio calls made during that period on all St. Louis County police channels, the fire channel used by Ferguson and other channels publicly archived online and could not locate the call. At least one channel on the Ferguson police radio is “receive-only,” meaning that the call may not have been broadcast.

After the call, Wilson pursued Brown on foot.

According to sources, Wilson has said that Brown turned and charged, and that Wilson then fired once, paused when Brown appeared to flinch and fired again, multiple times. He said he then radioed for an ambulance.

~ snip ~

Forty-one seconds after Wilson’s call, unit 25 reported that he was about to arrive at Wilson’s location, saying he was “going out on Canfield” and accompanied by the sound of his racing engine.

Forty-eight seconds later, another officer had arrived or was about to, announcing, “22’s out.”
 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
33. Could you post a link to this dispatch information...I haven't seen it anywhere
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 02:11 PM
Nov 2014

And I just did a reasonable search to avoid asking. Since you have been listening to the dispatch tapes, please let me know where I can find them.

herding cats

(19,565 posts)
39. I don't know where to find an audio, but here's a link to a written account.
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 02:40 PM
Nov 2014
At 11:29 a.m. on Aug. 9, a dispatcher asked Wilson to help other officers search for a man who had reportedly threatened to kill a woman. At 11:47 a.m., Wilson said he would respond to a call for a 2-month-old with breathing problems. Wilson drove his police SUV from the west side of West Florissant Avenue to Glenark Drive, east of Canfield Drive and Copper Creek Court, where the fatal encounter would soon occur.

At 11:53 a.m., a dispatcher reported a “stealing in progress” at the Ferguson Market. The 911 operator was still talking to the caller in the background. In a second broadcast, 19 seconds later, the dispatcher says the suspect is a black male in a white T-shirt running toward QuikTrip, and had stolen a box of Swisher cigars.

About four minutes later, there’s more detail: the suspect is wearing a red Cardinals hat, a white T-shirt, yellow socks and khaki shorts, and is accompanied by another man.

At noon, Wilson reports that he’s back in service from the sick-baby call. He then asks the officers searching for the thieves – units 25 and 22 – if they need him. Seven seconds later, an unidentified officer broadcasts that the suspects had disappeared.

At 12:02 p.m., Wilson says, “21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car.” His call triggered at least two officers to head his way, including one who said he was close to Wilson.

Sources have told the Post-Dispatch that Wilson has told authorities that before the radio call he had stopped to tell Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, 22, to quit walking down the middle of the street. They kept walking, and he then realized that Brown matched the description of the suspect in the stealing call.

Wilson then asked dispatch for backup and backed up his SUV next to Brown and Johnson.

Wilson said Brown attacked him, sources said, and that they struggled over the officer’s gun before Wilson was able to fire twice, hitting Brown once. Brown ran away.

Wilson has told authorities that he called, “Shots fired, send all cars,” on his radio, but during the struggle his radio had been jarred and the channel changed.

The Post-Dispatch reviewed radio calls made during that period on all St. Louis County police channels, the fire channel used by Ferguson and other channels publicly archived online and could not locate the call. At least one channel on the Ferguson police radio is “receive-only,” meaning that the call may not have been broadcast.

After the call, Wilson pursued Brown on foot.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/multimedia/special/darren-wilson-s-radio-calls-show-fatal-encounter-was-brief/html_79c17aed-0dbe-514d-ba32-bad908056790.html
 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
49. Here is one source- I had found a raw version but am not seeing it now-
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 06:59 PM
Nov 2014
http://www.krdo.com/news/dispatch-audio-released-in-michael-brown-shooting/29737930

Where he says "Put me out on Canfield with two and send me another car" is the relevant portion.

fishwax

(29,149 posts)
48. Here's the "Radio Traffic" document from the Grand Jury
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 06:48 PM
Nov 2014
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370609-radio-traffic.html

The report of the robbery in progress begins at Track 349. Wilson is officer Frank 21.

Here is Wilson's interview from the day following: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370766-interview-po-darren-wilson.html

In this interview he says he heard a radio call for a robbery in progress with a black male wearing a black (note: he says black shirt, the report said white shirt) shirt, but he doesn't connect the two people he's talking to with the robbery until after the confrontation starts.

On Edit: I responded without reading the other subthread, but I see now you were hoping for actual audio. Audio would be nice.

fishwax

(29,149 posts)
47. No, according to his narrative he called for backup after they backtalked him
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 06:41 PM
Nov 2014

They were walking past his car and said "Fuck what you have to say" (page 4-5):

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370766-interview-po-darren-wilson.html

And then after that I put the vehicle in reverse, backed up about ten feet to 'em. a, attempted to open my door. Prior to backing up I did call out on the radio. I said "Frank 21. out with two. send me another car."

SunsetDreams

(8,571 posts)
6. Thanks Recursion.
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 12:27 PM
Nov 2014

IMO there should still be another call for backup after he supposedly HAD to shoot someone for an altercation that happened in and around the car. Michael Brown was running away...it seems he had time to make an additional call.

pkdu

(3,977 posts)
9. He testified he did make another call on the car radio , but it was somehow on the wrong channel.
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 12:37 PM
Nov 2014

A fucking lie.

TBF

(32,064 posts)
8. He did - but like Zimmerman he didn't
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 12:29 PM
Nov 2014

stay in the car and wait for back-up. He got out and then he was afraid for his life. Like Zimmerman. And like Zimmerman he figured he had a gun so he would shoot. And like Zimmerman he now walks free.

This is how it works.

TBF

(32,064 posts)
12. OK, why isn't THIS body (graphic warning)
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 12:44 PM
Nov 2014

In or even near the car? If this were truly a case of self-defense and he was really "assaulted" in the car then that is where the body would be. Not out lying in the street for 4.5 hours.


sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
15. Had there been a prosecutor present in the GJ room, that is a question that would have been asked.
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 12:53 PM
Nov 2014

Perhaps it was, maybe one of the jurors asked. But from what I have read so far, there was no prosecutor present in that room. A great Defense attorney, for Wilson though.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
21. Yes, but who were they trying to prosecute? They did get an indictment, of Brown.
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 01:22 PM
Nov 2014

Either they are the most incompetent prosecutors ever since we know that you can get an indictment for a ham sandwich from the average GJ, OR they were defending Wilson.

I'm sure they are very upset that the could not convince this particular GJ to indict their suspect and will be looking for other alternatives, like just prosecuting him without the GJ indictment, or requesting a Federal Indictment, no?

Have they made any statements as to why they failed so spectacularly to get an indictment?

Travelman

(708 posts)
26. Or, the evidence simply didn't stack up enough to convince the grand jury to indict
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 01:40 PM
Nov 2014

I don't really get why no one can manage to accept that. I mean, I understand that people are in denial, but at some point people need to turn loose of their emotionalism and look at the actual evidence.

These people spent a lot of time looking at all of this. A lot of time that they didn't really have to: remember, they were scheduled to end their term back in September. If they didn't give a damn about any of this, they could have simply picked a charge and given out an indictment and gone home, passing the buck off to a trial jury. But they didn't do that. People probably need to be asking themselves why that is the case.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
27. What did they spend a lot of time looking at? Was there any cross examination of
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 01:54 PM
Nov 2014

Wilson eg? I have some questions I would like to have seen asked of him.

GJs generally indict suspects. They will 'indict a ham sandwich'.

Why are people not accepting this sham? Because it was clear from the beginning that it was never intended to get an indictment of Wilson, it was intended to indict Brown. In that regard, it was a success for the 'prosecutor'.

So he got his indictment of Brown but Brown is dead so there cannot be a trial for him, he didn't get to give any testimony.

I don't get why some people are only too willing to accept an indictment of a dead teenager from a GJ that was, supposedly anyhow, called to indict the person who killed him. Seems to me the prosecutor did not want an indictment of the suspect, which is extremely odd, don't you think?

Travelman

(708 posts)
34. The spent a lot of time looking at evidence and testimony
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 02:13 PM
Nov 2014

All of this was covered last night. Something like seventy hours of testimony.

I don't know if any of the grand jurors asked Wilson any questions (I haven't gone through all of the evidence yet), but the fact that he testified for four hours seems a strong indicator that they did indeed ask him a lot of questions.

You can see it all for yourself here, here, here, and here.


People like to assume that a grand jury indictment is just some automatic thing, some sort of formality. That is not necessarily the case; if it were, then we would have dispensed with grand juries a long time ago.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
37. People aren't 'assuming' that a GJ indictment is an automatic thing. GJs are a tool for the
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 02:23 PM
Nov 2014

prosecutor, though not intended to be, and for the most part, Prosecutors DO get indictments from GJs. In fact, so much so it has been quite controversial for a long time now.

So McCullough FAILED as a prosecutor is what you are saying. He must be very upset. Prosecutors who fail to get indictments from GJs generally are upset.

So, what will he do as he must have felt he had a case against the suspect, Wilson I mean? Will he pursue it in some other way?

justiceischeap

(14,040 posts)
18. Well see, Michael Brown looked "demonic" and charged at Wilson full on
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 12:56 PM
Nov 2014

so Wilson was afraid, I guess, of being tackled by this "demonic" young man who was charging him like a bull. Demonic looking brown men are very scary.

TorchTheWitch

(11,065 posts)
22. he's not required to have any injuries
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 01:24 PM
Nov 2014

Almost all perfectly justifiable shooting by police not only to the police have no injuries but they aren't even in touching distance. Why does every seem to think that he needs to have injuries. And he did though we always knew they were minor. Since when does a cop have to be beaten first before they can justifiably shoot someone???



 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
24. When he lies and says he feels he is "near death" to the GJ, it should have damaged his credibility
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 01:29 PM
Nov 2014

Unfortunately, the GJ did everything they could to help him out, and attack much more credible witnesses.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
29. Since when does a teenager have to die for walking down the middle of the street?
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 02:00 PM
Nov 2014

A cop DOESN'T have to be beaten. All he has to do is not harass someone who he says, was a 'hulk' and looked like a 'demon' to him. If the wanted the teenager to walk on the sidewalk, all he had to do was call out 'hey, guys, could you walk on the sidewalk please'?

Btw, why was Wilson fired from his last precinct? We never learned why. That entire PD was fired. He was not rehired when they reviewed the firings. So he went to Ferguson. What is his background, I think since we get all the little details about these Black Teenagers' behavior, we should know why Wilson and his entire Dept were fired before he landed his job in Ferguson.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
32. When did Wilson take out his gun, and why?
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 02:09 PM
Nov 2014

This to me is a key question.

Brown is outside the car. Wilson is inside the car. The gun is in a police issued holster, on Wilson's right hip.

The holster is designed to make it nearly impossible for some one other then the person wearing that holster to remove the gun.

Brown is outside the car.

Wilson is inside the car.

There is no way Brown can get the gun out of Wilson's holster.

Even if Brown is hitting you ... you move the car. You don't need to speed away, just put the car in gear, and roll some, forward or backward.

Why make the gun easier to reach by taking it out. Makes no sense.

Unless Wilson had the gun out already.

 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
35. Ding ding ding
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 02:13 PM
Nov 2014

"Wilson had the gun out already."

Yup. He backed up hard on them with his gun out, and was going to teach this wise-ass a lesson, and then his gun accidentally discharged when he had Brown at the window and then everything went sideways.

This was a first degree murder.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
43. I think he was going to ...
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 04:10 PM
Nov 2014

... make them get on the ground, face down for disrespecting him. That's why the gun is out.

What happens next, I'm not sure ...

... the gun goes off accidentally when Wilson throws the door open and it hits Brown and bounces back at him.

... Brown sees the gun, thinks Wilson is about to shot him, so he tries to take the gun from him.

I haven't had a chance to read the transcripts ... but I think this is important.

logosoco

(3,208 posts)
38. This was in the many pages of documents released.
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 02:24 PM
Nov 2014

Also, saving us from having to read through to find it, Mr. Scorpio had a post that mentions this part. (I am so sorry I forgot the name of the post, it was very good!). Other parts that I read he talked about how he remembered thinking of using other items but then decided on his gun.

And you're right, it didn't seem to make sense. But then again, a lot of this doesn't. Especially the part about the grand jury seems to have been swayed by the prosecuting attorney acting like a defense attorney.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
44. I haven't had a chance to read it all, but I will.
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 04:13 PM
Nov 2014

It does sound like the prosecutor acted more like a defense attorney.

He put on every single witness and allowed their stories to conflict. A prosecutor in a grand jury hearing only uses his BEST witnesses and his best evidence.

A defense attorney in a trial pulls in every crazy witness they can, to try and muddy the water. The prosecutor did that here with the grand jury.

And then, a prosecutor usually, "make a case" ... they don't just show the evidence, they tell a story around it. It sounds like this prosecutor did not do that. In fact, it sounds like he let Wilson be the only person who told an end to end story.

logosoco

(3,208 posts)
45. I think you're right.
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 05:23 PM
Nov 2014

I plan on reading more. Just the parts I've read so far sound like if this was a book or a movie, I wouldn't believe it.
I am hoping the DOJ will make a difference. They are looking at the whole department.

FormerOstrich

(2,702 posts)
41. What about Johnson?
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 03:40 PM
Nov 2014

Is Wilson's testimony he had a struggle with one of two suspects, he then pursued the injured suspect as he fled, thus turning his back on the second suspect?

Why wouldn't he have detained the second suspect and pursued the injured suspect when backup arrived? Wouldn't you be fearful the other suspect would become involved?

Erose999

(5,624 posts)
46. According to his testimony he called for backup at the beginning of the encounter, and then in the
Tue Nov 25, 2014, 05:49 PM
Nov 2014

altercation his radio got switched to a different channel so when he repeated his call for backup he didn't get the right department.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Did Darren Wilson call fo...