20 year old man charged with shooting officers in Ferguson

[herding cats]

Last edited Sun Mar 15, 2015, 04:12 PM - Edit history (1)

A 20-year-old protester has been charged with shooting two police officers in Ferguson, Mo., last week, authorities said Sunday.

County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch said Jeffrey Williams was charged with two counts of assault in the first degree, one count of firing a weapon from a vehicle, and thee counts of armed criminal action.
McCulloch said Williams admitted firing the shots, but said he was shooting at someone else.

"We're not sure we buy that part of it," McCulloch said, adding that the handgun used in the shooting has been recovered.

He said Williams was involved in the demonstration that was wrapping up when the incident took place. Williams, he said, was being held in lieu of $300,000 cash bail.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/15/ferguson-police-shooting-arrest/24808987/

So, it was a drive by and not from the hill above like thought. I didn't see if they mentioned the type of gun in the presser.

I'm changing the headline, which should be fine since this is GD. It reads "protester" which I'm reading elsewhere is in question and probably false.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. The original reporsts said a handgun. There were a lot of theads here at DU

discussing the issue with the gun.

[herding cats]

3. I thought it would be of interest here, which was why I mentioned I wasn't sure.

A hand gun sounds about right considering he was in a vehicle. If he really was shooting at someone else and hit the police by accident, it's stupid, horrible bad luck all the way around.

I see another thread was posted on this while I was formatting this one on my tablet. My apologies to all here for the duplicate topic!

[cherokeeprogressive]

38. "Shooting at someone else and hitting the police" is as far from bad luck as you can get.

Sheer idiotic stupid morons are not subject to "luck".

[mythology]

99. Well if chance favors the prepared mind

The opposite is also true.

[cherokeeprogressive]

100. Keep telling yourself that.

You might wanna click your heels together while saying it.

[LittleBlue]

2. So the conspiracy theorists can rest now or no?nt

[sabrina 1]

4. I saw the video of the actual shooting and saw no car in the frame. Also heard the eye witnesses

shouting that it had come from a house on a street they were pointing towards. That is the house the police and swat teams were searching.

And to say this was a 'protester' is questionable. Just because someone joins a crowd, doesn't make them part of that crowd. Not to mention, I believe nothing McCullough has to say, so will wait for someone more credible to weigh in.

[herding cats]

5. What conspiracies, i didn't know there was any?

The speculation it was from on a hill above was due to confusion after the shooting from what I understand. That's common in such an emotionally charged moment.

[hack89]

8. There was at least one false flag thread

and one long thread about how it most likely a RW domestic terrorist.

[blm]

13. you mean how it COULD HAVE BEEN a RW agitator given the distance

from those who were shot.

[Rex]

19. It was a good guess.

Sadly some here are far to insecure to do such things, they have to wait for information to be spoonfed to them.

[blm]

24. Yeah - and from an official of a town that has no systemic racism.

sarc

[pintobean]

31. Aren't "good" guesses required to be accurate

or close to accurate? A guess that is completely wrong is not a good guess.

[cherokeeprogressive]

40. Apparently speculation of the "could have been" variety now qualifies as a good guess. n/t

[kiva]

89. Y'know, the whole 'horseshoes and hand granades' thing.

The people pushing the false flag idea will say "But it could have been true!!!!!", which is pretty much the canned response to criticism of conspiracy theories.

I won the lottery. Well, I didn't win the lottery, but I could have!

[blm]

93. Meaning as good as any other considering the fact that there have been more

law enforcement ambushed and shot by RW extremists in recent years than there have been shot at around or near protests.

That seems to be a factor no one wants to address in their haste to condemn what was clearly written as possibility based on the recent spate of cop shootings, especially over the past year.

[Throd]

32. So immediately flapping your arms and announcing who you want the perps to be is a better way to go?

[Rex]

82. 'who you want the perps to be' - I guess do to limited comprehension skills

that is how it appears to people that seem to have the urge to defend the KKK under any circumstances.

[Throd]

92. Yes, I was defending the Klan. It's hard to type wearing my pointy hood with the little eye holes.

When things like this happen, certain posters, without a shred of evidence post theories of who might be responsible because they really, really, really want it to be true.

I believe this was the case.

[blm]

104. Who did that?

/

[Rex]

113. "It was irresponsible and foolish."

Supposed adults say that on a public forum and I am supposed to take them seriously? Hear that blm!? You can hurt people in RL, buy expressing your opinion on DU!



I've seen it all now...

[phil89]

81. No, it wasn't a good guess.

It was 100% incorrect and stated with absolutely no evidence. It was irresponsible and foolish.

[blm]

94. It wasn't stated, it was clearly preceded by the words, 'I think' and 'could have been'

and based on the probability, since there have been more law enforcement ambushed and shot at by RW extremists in recent years than there have been law enforcement ambushed and shot at by protestors and ordinary criminals.

You read it the way you wanted to interpret it instead of as it was written.

[Rex]

112. "It was irresponsible and foolish." Why who got hurt by it?

You few that pretend it is offensive for another person to have an opinion are making me LMAO!

SO, DU now can hurt people via posters posting opinions...I've seen it all now.

Seriously you guys have a good act going, but everyone sees right through it.

[NaturalHigh]

6. Apparently it was a "protester."

But wait...I thought people were sure it was going to be some sort of white supremacist, false flag operation, possibly just some gun nut looking for a chance to shoot somebody.

Is it any wonder that these "protesters" get so little respect? I'll be interested to see if any of the protest leaders denounce these shootings.

[roody]

14. Are you a Ferguson Police officer?

[NaturalHigh]

18. Nope.

[blm]

15. CNN now…..It wasn't a protestor - he was never at the protests -

he said he saw someone at the protests who he said had robbed him and he aimed at them.

[NaturalHigh]

20. I'm just going with what I read.

[Rex]

25. Wait...you mean you jumped to conclusions like the people you are making fun of!?

Do go on...

[NaturalHigh]

35. I didn't make up a fantasy out of thin air.

A lot of people seemed (or pretended to be) convinced that this was some sort of white supremacist master plan, sort of like the crazy fantasies that the Boston Marathon bomber was a white, right-wing gun nut.

[blm]

56. No one was convinced - qualifying terms like "I think" and "could have been"

followed with links supporting the reason behind the possibility does not equal 'convinced' according to any definition.

I understand why you felt the need to apply your own definitions, however.

[NaturalHigh]

60. Cool story bro. Did you read any of those comments?

I read a few before the sheer nuttery convinced me to just turn off my computer.

[blm]

64. The overwhelming view on the thread was that it was worth CONSIDERING the

possibility.

Your claim that people were convinced is hardly accurate. It only supports YOUR lack of discernment.

[Rex]

83. Thanks for saying it, I am getting tired of the fake outrage or whatever the crap is

always ruining a good thread. They know what they are doing and also know they can get away with 'concern trolling' all day long in GD.

Notice not a single one of them can trash those threads or ignore them? I think they purposely try and sabotage those threads. All because they don't like the topic.

Boo fucking hoo.

[NaturalHigh]

88. Apparently the overwhelming view was wrong.

[blm]

91. How could it be wrong to say something is POSSIBLE

and worth considering, especially in light of the fact that there have been more law enforcement ambushed and shot by RW extremists in recent years than have been ambushed and shot by protestors?

[NaturalHigh]

97. Okay then, I'll go with possible.

Highly unlikely from the beginning, proved to be wrong now, but remotely possible.

Work for you?

[blm]

103. Not 'highly unlikely' to anyone following the reports and articles on the subject.

You are welcome to show me where your research shows that more law enforcement are targeted and killed protestors or by shooters from urban residential areas than there are law enforcement targeted by RW extremists in the last 6 years.

[Scootaloo]

106. But you were sure ready to shit all over protestors as a whole

[NaturalHigh]

111. Not as a whole, but I have nothing but disdain...

for those who used the "protests" as an excuse to riot, loot, and burn.

[Scootaloo]

115. Yes, as a whole

Is it any wonder that these "protesters" get so little respect? I'll be interested to see if any of the protest leaders denounce these shootings.

Also, the fact that you are using scare quotes around the word protests kind of gives you away, too.

[still_one]

21. The new media, can't even get the story straight. Won't be surprised if fox

accuses President Obama

[pintobean]

36. Is CNN interviewing the guy

while he's in custody?

[blm]

52. No...a bishop who met with him...

he knew who he wanted to hit and planned the shooting knowing the target would be at the protest. My take: probably expected he could get away with it in the confusion.

[pintobean]

57. We'll see.

Investigators say he was there. They've been looking at a lot of video.

[GoneFishin]

7. If according to him, he was not shooting at the cops, then what was he "protesting"?

Who chose to use the word "protester" in this article? Why was he in a car if he was part of the protestors?

If the "protester" had liberal leanings does anybody believe that the press would hesitate to emphasize the point?

I guess we will need to wait until Fox News tells us if this was the work of a "lone wolf" (aka right wing nut) or a "terrorist" (aka any non-white non-Judeo-Christian perpetrator).

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

9. Gee, what a surprise. They catch a guy that fits their profile and call him a protester right off

the bat.

What are the odds

Too bad the DA and police in MO have lost all credibility, entirely and completely.

Even if they are telling the truth, for once, who would know?

[ScreamingMeemie]

11. Poor choice to trot the DA out for that.

[Rex]

16. Exactly! After watching the GJ farce, who would believe they

have any credibility left? OTOH, the white racists will have a field day now that it turned out not to be one of their own.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

17. DU will have a field day..just watch--- NOT du, just some on DU

[Rex]

22. Oh I know, they will be positively glowing over this.

NOT that they wanted to defend RWing white racists from false accusations mind you...no no, nothing like that at all.

[blm]

23. Perhaps try and dial back the anti-DU angle.

Not everything needs to be made into an anti-DU post.

FWIW

[arcane1]

26. Thank you.

[cwydro]

33. Ditto.

[GGJohn]

61. Let's see, so far you've been wrong about Antonio Martin,

wrong about Vonderitt Myers, so what makes you think you're right about this?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

62. .

http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2014/10/autopsy_vonderitt_myers_jr_shot_8_times_6_times_from_behind.html

The evidence shows that the story we've been given by the Police Department does not match up," one of the Myers family's attorneys, Jerryl Christmas, told AP. "There's no evidence that there was a gun battle going on.

I dont recall saying absolutely neither were guilty, I do recall aLWAys questioning anything police EVER say

some here instantly and always defend police, I am not one of them


You see the difference is I know cops lie, all the time...so I never believe them, I need a credible 3rd party to provide evidence

[GGJohn]

65. And so far, no audio has been released, even though that Christmas claimed that there was audio.

Whom to believe? The forensics and physical evidence? Or the unsubstantiated claims of the family's lawyer?
Guess what I'm going to believe?
Also, you were wrong about Antonio Martin.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

66. I said I knew absolutely he was innocent of anything? When did I do that?

or did I question your favorite people, the police

Let me say this again, I NEVER believe the police.

They are prove to lie all the time.

That does not mean I am saying someone is innocent, I am saying I dont believe the cops when they tell me they are guilty

[GGJohn]

72. And yet, you still can't bring yourself to admit that Martin did indeed

attempt to shoot that cop.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

74. I havent even looked at it or thought about it, you are obsessed with proving the cops are

always right and dont lie

I wont be able to help you with that, they lie all the time.

Why is it SOOOO important to you for that person to be guilty, so much so you would bring it back up like this?

[GGJohn]

76. And you STILL can't admit you were wrong.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

78. Wrong about what? Where did I say he did not shoot the cop? Or did I say I wont believe he did

until I have proof from someone other than the police?

BTW "I dont see a gun" isnt the same as he didnt do it...is it

you would have to have an understanding of the world that you dont have , evidently, to understand why some people see things differently than you

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

70. What you mean is who to believe, the cops or historical reality that they lie all the time

You are so invested in believing in them and I bet being liked by them that you can remember what I said months ago?

You might wanna take a look at that

[GGJohn]

73. No, I don't believe everything they say, and I have called them out when they're wrong,

as in the case of Tamir Rice and Michael Brown.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

75. Brown? That would shock me, so you agree that Wilson created a situation that was NOt necessary

and that he needlessly shot that kid?

[GGJohn]

79. Of course that's what happened, Wilson should've been charged with,

at the very least, voluntary manslaughter, or at the most, 2nd degree murder and oppression under the color of law.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

80. Well blow me over with a feather...

[roody]

12. Protestors are usually on foot, not in a car.

[arcane1]

27. "Black and nearby" doesn't have the same effect.

[gwheezie]

28. Not sure how he is a protester

I don't see how that can be determined at this point. I saw a protest leader on cnn say he knows the young man but hasn't seen him at the protests in months.

[herding cats]

29. It is also now being reported he wasn't at the protest by other sources.

Driving by and seeing someone he hates, and participating are two different things after all. It is looking like a by design error in communication.

The people in power in Ferguson will never learn.

[blm]

30. Now saying he had been tracking the guy TO the protests so he

could take his shot. Planned. A protestor was the target not the shooter as McCulloch wants the press to report.

[romanic]

77. The question is, why would the gunman

trail the guy he hated to a protest with witnesses and the police at the scene? I know it's a fucked up question but the scum of society usually like to keep their crimes without people present.

[gwheezie]

84. Criminals are stupid

I've never credited drive by shooters as brilliant masterminds.
We'll see how this plays out. Having lived and worked in neighborhoods with stray bullets from drive by shooters and gun fights in the street shooting it up and bullets hitting everyone but, when I 1st read the story I did think it could have been stray bullets. But again I will wait to see how it plays out

[blm]

95. Pretty much the bottom line here - pretty damn stupid.

.

[cwydro]

86. My question also. nt

[blm]

105. Stupidly thinking the crowd was good cover?

.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

119. Too convenient.

He was aiming for the cops, but that carries a tougher penalty.

He wanted to kill someone else, he could have found a different place and shot him dead.

[DesMoinesDem]

34. But an irrelevant 2009 DHS study said that RW extremists are the greatest threat to cops

The only logical conclusion is that it was a rw extremist. Have the detectives that accused this guy even read the DHS report???!!! They need to throw any 'evidence' they collected away and read that report. Then they can search for the real shooter: a RW extremist.

[Rex]

85. Foxnews thanks you for doing their job here.

[blm]

98. No one said that - The words 'I think' +'could have been' do not = 'only logical conclusion'

unless someone is in the process of building a straw man to have the argument they want to have instead of with the actual post.

Where did anyone ever say throw away the evidence and read the report? No one did. The report and the articles linked were posted as reference to why the possibility should be CONSIDERED.

How many law enforcement have been ambushed and shot at by RW extremists in recent years and how many law enforcement have been ambushed and shot at by protestors or residents of urban areas? Research it yourself and answer it if you dare.

But, I doubt you will.

[Eleanors38]

37. A plea of " it was the wrong one[twice]" won't help the defendant, even if true.

[gwheezie]

87. It might help at sentencing

But I think the guy might just want a plea bargain. He admitted to the shooting. If he can convince the prosecutor and judge he wasn't aiming at the people he hit he might just accept a plea.

[Eleanors38]

101. Usually, the motive to kill takes precedent over the intended target...

In short, once the premeditation is established, the victim becomes something of a fill-in-the-blank. This from a non-attorney.

[XemaSab]

116. In some ways it's even worse

"I was aiming for someone else and hit two innocent bystanders who happened to be cops, but they just as easily could have been babies, nuns, girl scouts, survivors of the Boston Marathon bombing...."

[gwheezie]

118. If you put it that way

That does sound worse. Good thing not a lawyer advising anyone.

[Matrosov]

39. The question is, what is really him?

It's not like police officers ever go to extreme lengths to frame someone

[Oklahoma_Liberal]

42. Stock up on tinfoil boys, we have a live one!

[justalovebug]

41. Ireadon yahoo it was a 40mm handgun

McCulloch said Williams used a 40mm handgun, which matches the shell casings at the scene.

Williams, who St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said is black, is being held on $300,000 bond.


http://news.yahoo.com/police-announce-arrest-ferguson-police-shootings-175442302.html

[Oklahoma_Liberal]

43. I strongly doubt it was a 40mm handgun.

.40 cal maybe.

[GP6971]

44. 40 mm is a little extreme

I agree 40 mm is a little overkill for a handgun.......I'm sure the poster meant just what you stated....40 cal.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

51. No kidding

Outside of a grenade launcher there's no handgun of that size I'm aware of.

[justalovebug]

45. The police said they matched the shell casings to the gun?

[uppityperson]

46. This article says .40 cal.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ferguson-police-20150315-story.html

Jeffrey Williams, who lives near Ferguson, was arrested Saturday night. Officials found a .40-caliber handgun at his home, officials said, and he told investigators that he’d shot at someone in a crowd of demonstrators over a personal dispute

[justalovebug]

48. This is what raises suspicion

The police now are changing what gun they found.

[arcane1]

50. It's also possible the reporter is correcting an ititially incorrect report.

[azurnoir]

54. well I seriously doubt it was 40mm as that would be an artillery shell

here's an example of a 40mm shell

[pintobean]

55. No they're not

McCulloch was asked and he said he thought it was a 9mm. One of the cops behind him corrected him and he turned around to get clarification. He turned back to the reporter and said it was a 40. Some idiot took that to mean 40 mm instead of 40 cal.

[justalovebug]

58. okay I didn't know the difference between the two types

[NutmegYankee]

59. Caliber is a decimal of inches - so .38 is 0.38 inches in diameter.

On the other hand, 1 inch = 25.4 mm.

[lumberjack_jeff]

96. I thought his defense was interesting.

"I wasn't shooting at the police!"

The claim that he was only shooting at the people of Ferguson is considered exculpatory.

[gopiscrap]

47. Welcome to DU

[justalovebug]

49. thank you

[gopiscrap]

53. You're welcome

hope you have a good time here!

[GGJohn]

68. You might want to edit your post to correct the 40mm to 40 cal.

you're taking some good natured ribbing here.
BTW, welcome to DU.

[GGJohn]

63. A 40mm handgun?

Ya mean this?

[justalovebug]

67. I didn't know about guns I just read it in the article

I'm sorry

[GGJohn]

69. No problem, just some good natured ribbing.

Welcome to DU.

[justalovebug]

71. thanks

[Aerows]

110. And just teasing, myself

Welcome to DU

[Aerows]

109. Both guys were shot with one of these?

[Aristus]

90. If the Ferguson police will simply abide by the law, and

not go around shooting unarmed people, this sort of thing wouldn't happen...

( I wonder how they'd like having their own argument used against them?...)

[blm]

102. Wow - great answer.

That community has been under duress for years, and the DOJ report proved to what great degree it was PUT under that duress by those in position of authority.

[Jenny_92808]

108. I agree with others..

your post is excellent!

[Jenny_92808]

107. I do not trust their responses because of their record...

...of lying. McCulloch needs to be removed!

[tenderfoot]

114. I don't believe a "protester" was involved - no matter what usatoday says

[Cha]

117. I don't know if you've seen this Huff Post article, herding cats.. & Wesley Lowery Tweets..

Arrest Made In Connection To Ferguson Police Shooting

snip//

But regular demonstrators denied that they had ever seen Williams at the protests.

"We don't know him," said Tony Rice, the founder of Ground Level Support, who has been protesting since August

After naming three young male protesters who were regularly at the demonstrations, Rice told HuffPost, "I don't think there is a male 20-years-old that regularly protest outside of them.I think I can speak for the protester community in saying we don't know him," said Rice

After the press conference, press swarmed Alicia Street when she helped source the first picture of Williams. Street, 29, has been actively involved in protest since August as well and says she was unfamiliar with Williams as well.

"I have never seen him at a protest. I cannot recall that I even seen him that night. We know a lot of people out there, we really do. I even showed pictures to other regular protesters and they said they didn't know him," Street told HuffPost.

Other regular demonstrators also said that they did not recognize Williams.

MOre..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/15/ferguson-police-shooting-arrest_n_6873364.html?ir=Politics&utm_campaign=031515&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-politics&utm_content=FullStory&ncid=newsltushpmg00000003

Wondering who the Wiilaims was shooting at if not the Police?

Tweets from Wesley Lowery on the subject..
http://theobamadiary.com/2015/03/15/a-tweet-or-two-261/