Originally posted by Bardock42
The robbery is not irrelevant altogether. Just irrelevant to the shooting. Although the pro Darren Wilson side has used it to justify the shooting.Issues with Darren Wilson's account:
1) He says Mike Brown kept punching and hitting, having the strength of Hulk Hogan, being like a demon, yet Darren Wilson has virtually no injuries at all. The photographs released from him at the hospital show at most that there is a mild reddening on his cheek, but who knows where that comes from. Definitely not 2 full on, undefended, punches to the jaw by Hulk Hogan powered demon as Wilson alleges.
2) Stopping to exchange Cigarillos and a chat.
In that scuffle Mike Brown also apparently pauses, hands cigarillos to his friend, Darren Wilson takes that opportunity of pause to do...nothing.
3)
Wilson says that Brown collapsed about 10 feet from him, after which Wilson returned to his car didn't go near or touch Brown, however there is photographic evidence, that he stood much closer over Mike Brown.
4)
Wilson at different times says that Mike Brown had his hands raised (as one would do when an officer tells them to) but also says that Brown reached for something in his waistband (even though he had nothing there). Which I think other eye witnesses do not corroborate.
5)
Most eye witnesses as far as I know say that Mike Brown walked, with his hands raised towards Wilson. Wilson alleges he charged him like a bull.
There's more articles talking about issues with his testimony in a broader context, like why is someone allowed to just wash himself and clean his gun unsupervised after shooting someone?
I'm not saying all the other accounts are flawless, just that Wilson's has flaws, and seems somewhat manufactured (handed cigarillos tying him to the crime reported, grabbing inside of his waistband as if to reach for a gun, when he doesn't have a gun). And I'm saying that the American public has been deprived of finding out the truth.
My issue with this whole thing is my believe that there was no fair trial to be had, because white police officers get special treatment in particular when their victims are black. I think every incident where someone ends up dead should be brought to a trial, and that this has not is just another blemish in a long history of racism, injustice and bias of the American "justice" system.
I had no idea that Wilson claimed any of those 5 things (I'll go through them, at the bottom of m post). Also, I didn't know that Wilson cleaned himself and his gun (it should be okay for him to clean himself after examined by a forensic investigator, however: that actually happened so this point of yours may be irrelevant). I don't understand why he would do that because that would only hurt him, not help him. Here's why: he would be washing blood or flesh off of him, from Brown. He'd be washing off the gun residue from his person. The only thing washing himself could do is make him look like he's trying to cover up something. Any person who had a modicum of forensic knowledge would know that it hurts him and doesn't help. What it looks like to an outsider is one of two things:
1. He's an idiot and further proved he's an incompetent cop.
2. he knew he was guilty of something and thought he was properly covering his tracks but...#1 still applies in this scenario, too.
I think it is #1, all the way. However, that does not match up with the evidence (the gun cleaning stuff) because a forensic investigator swabbed the gun and found Brown's DNA on it. "...the subsequent DNA report found Mr. Brown’s genetic material on Officer Wilson’s Sig Sauer pistol. Similarly, DNA from Mr. Brown was also found on the officer’s uniform pants and shirt."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/us/ferguson-grand-jury-weighed-mass-of-evidence-much-of-it-conflicting.html?_r=0
So it doesn't matter that Wilson cleaned himself or his gun because it was already "swabbed" by a forensic investigator. This is similar to what happens in your home: you eventually get to clean up your house after the forensic folks are done doing their thang.
Also, here is the photo of his punched face:
Looks like a good clean punch to his face, the day after. I do not like that you imply he hurt himself to make it look he was attacked, however. You're skirting on the edge of tinfoil hat conspiracy theory levels of speculation. I talk more about the face-punching in #1, below.
When the 60 witnesses had varying testimonies where, "...witness testimony revealed an array of variations, some subtle and some flatly contradictory...", I do not see how you can reject some key pieces of Wilson's account while also accepting other eye-witness accounts as being correct. If you have to believe and reject one testimony over another, you need to select the one or some that most closely fits the evidence (which is why I singled out the onlooking-construction worker. For example, his testimony accounts for why some people thought Brown was shot in the back while also explaining why Wilson may have mistook Brown for charging...I thought it did well to represent the evidence and reconciled the varying eye-witness accounts).
To address your points, directly, with links where applicable:
1. I don't remember any of Wilson's accounts saying that Brown kept punching and hitting him. I did post a link to Wilson's account that stated he decided to pull out his gun after getting punched, twice. Wilson did say Brown kept trying to hit him and even grazed his person a few times, but I see no direct quote, beyond the 2 punch statement, that said Brown kept repeatedly punching Wilson.
2. I find this to be largely irrelevant. Johnson was at Brown's side at the time. It would have taken, what, 2 seconds, at the most to hand his package over to Johnson? That's just enough time for Wilson to look around his cab, think about his situation, and continue to get assaulted, lol. According to Wilson, when Brown handed Johnson those things, Wilson grabbed Brown's arm (meaning, this point of yours is not only irrelevant, it is wrong). "...That was when Brown turned to his left and handed Johnson several packs of the stolen cigarillos he had been holding. Wilson then grabbed Brown's right arm trying to get control, but Brown hit him in the face..."
Found under the wiki entry for Wilson's account:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Darren_Wilson.27s_interview_and_testimony
3. This is more of a subjective label than something that is debate-worthy. I saw that same photo. If that was immediately after he shot Brown, that is understandable. If that was later, then, yes, he didn't really go near the body after he shot him. And the subjective part of "near" could be "any closer than 2 feet." I consider "near" to be closer than 2 feet from my face or hands. If someone is "near" me, they are within that 2-foot zone.
4. Two or three eye-witnesses said he clutched his abdomen or something...they mistook it for Brown grabbing his gut because he had been shot in the gut (iirc). But that could have been what Wilson was talking about. At that point, Wilson was already panicking, imo. He could very well think Brown was reaching for an imaginary waist-band gun. But, other eye-witness accounts do not have the "clutching" part. The most reliable one I saw never mentioned that. However, I think you make the absolute best point, here, regarding Wilson's account having a problem. Wilson claims that his hand was in his waistband pretty much the whole time after turning around. The whole time. Even when he shot him through the head and Brown fell forward, Wilson still claimed his (Brown's) hand was in his waistband. I cannot find another eye-witness that corroborates that. I find many that contradict it. IMO, this is Wilson trying to justify the shooting.
5. This is a good criticism, too. Here is a breakdown of where people fall (no pun intended, holy shit, no damn pun intended: too son) on the rushing thing:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/ferguson-witnesses/