#Ferguson Grand Jury Evidence: Police Officer’s Answers to Juror Questions
Details of Officer Wilson’s answers to questions from Prosecutors and Grand Jury members.
This post focuses on the second-half of Police Officer’s testimony before the Grand Jury, during which he is responding to direct questions from both the Prosecutors present (Whirley and Alizadeh) as well as from individual Grand Jury members.
This portion of the testimony also covers the relevant post-shooting events.
The first half of Wilson’s testimony before the Grand Jury consisted of his narrative of events, and was covered in yesterday’s post here: #Ferguson Grand Jury evidence: Police Officer’s Account of Shooting.
It bears mentioning again that Officer Wilson was not compelled to testify before the Grand Jury, but rather volunteered to do so. He did so knowing he would not be permitted to be accompanied by legal counsel during his testimony.
As was done in yesterday’s post, below is an abridged version of the testimony, to ease reading through the material. The full-text of the testimony is embedded at the bottom of this post in the form of a PDF of the official Grand Jury transcript.
One observation comes immediately to mind as I’ve had the opportunity to both carefully review Wilson’s September 26 testimony before the Grand Jury as well as watch him recount events in his November 25 ABC News interview with George Stephanopoulos, and that is the utter consistently between the two accounts. This stands in sharp contrast to the very often wildly varying testimony of “pro-Brown” witnesses before the Grand Jury.
Another is how quickly the scene around the shooting became charged with hostility and rage among the gathering crowd, to the degree that it was felt unsafe to have Wilson sit in a patrol car while the scene was secured. Instead, his supervisor gave Wilson his own duty vehicle to drive back to the police station.
Third is the degree to which at least some of the jurors appear openly hostile to Wilson, deliberately attempting to cast events into acts of malfeasance.
For example, one of these jurors contests at length Wilson’s statement that Brown was in “complete control” of his service pistol, because Wilson also still had a hand on the gun. This despite Wilson’s testimony that Brown had forced the muzzle of the pistol against Wilson’s hip and was attempting to place his finger over Wilson’s on the trigger so that he could discharge the weapon into Wilson’s body.
Whirley: All right. So you’re in the car, you fire two shots and he’s running and you get out of the car to chase after him and tell us your rationale, what you are thinking now?
Wilson: My main goal was to keep eyes on him and just to keep him contained until I had people coming there. I knew I had already called for backup and I knew they were already in the area for the stealing that was originally reported. So I thought if I can buy 30 seconds of time, someone else will be here, we can make the arrest, nothing happens, we are all good. And it didn’t happen that way.
So when he ran, you know, just stay with him, someone is going to be here, you know, we’ll get him.
Whirley: So you got out of the car, you are running, you are telling him to stop; is that right?
Wilson: Correct.
Whirley: and he’s not listening?
Wilson: No, not until he gets to that light pole, and that’s when he stopped.
Whirley: Are you firing at him as he’s running.
Wilson: No, ma’am.
Whirley: Any idea what happened to make him turn around or he just all of the sudden turns around.
Wilson: No, just turns round. His whole reaction to the whole thing was something I’ve never seen. I’ve never seen that much aggression so quickly from a simple request to just walk on the sidewalk.
Wilson: At that time my sergeant pulled up and I walked over to him. I don’t remember what started the conversation, he said something first, but I said I have to tell you what happened. And he goes, what happened?
I said, I had to kill him.
He goes, you what?
I said, he grabbed my gun, I shot him, I killed him.
He goes, go sit in the car.
I said, I cannot sit in the car.
I remember him saying, Darren, sit in the car.
I said, Sarge, I can’t be singled out. It is already getting hostile. I can’t be singled out in the car. I will leave if you want me to leave.
He said, take my car and leave. So I got in his car and I drove to the police station.
Whirley: In your mind, him grabbing the gun is what made the difference where you felt you had to use a weapon to stop him?
Wilson: Yes. Once he was hitting me in the face, that enough, was in my mind to authorize the use of force.
Whirley: Okay. So if he would not have grabbed your gun while he was hitting you in the face, everything was the same, but he would not have grabbed the gun, you still would have used deadly force?
Wilson: My gun was already being presented as a deadly force option while he was hitting me in the face.
Whirley: Did you guys [the police] have a volatile, well, how can I put this. Did you not really get along well with the folks that lived in that apartment, not you personally, I mean the police in general?
Wilson: It is an antipolice area for sure.
Whirley: And when you say antipolice, tell me more?
Wilson: There’s a lot of gangs that reside or associate with that area. There’s a lot of violence in that area, there’s a lot of gun activity, drug activity, it is just not a very well-liked community. That community doesn’t like the police.
Whirley: Were you pretty much on high alert being in that community by yourself, especially when Michael Brown said, “fuck what you say?”
Wilson: Yes, that’s not an area where you can take anything really lightly. Like I said, it is a hostile environment. There are good people over there, there really are, but I mean there is an influx of gang activity in that area.
Whirley: When you first went out on your call to Canfield Green, you said, I’m going out Frank 21?
Wilson: I said, “Frank 21, I’m on Canfield with two, send me another car.”
Whirley: It wasn’t a stressful situation at that point?
Wilson: No, it wasn’t, but I just had that gut feeling that someone else needed to be there and knowing that his guy just stole form the market because I saw the Cigarillos and had the black shirt, I felt that in order to affect the arrest, it would be better to have.
Whirley: You asked for this other car before any words were exchanged, correct?
Wilson: No, he had already told me, “fuck what you have to say.”
Wilson: I asked [redacted] to go get me a pair of gloves, [I] put the gloves on. I grab an evidence envelop, take my gun out of the holster, make it safe. I lock the slide back, take the magazine out, take the one round’s that’s left in it out. I put it all in that bag, seal it with evidence tape and then sign it.
Whirley: And you handled your gun at that time with gloves on?
Wilson: Correct.
Whirley: And why did you do that?
Wilson: To preserve any evidence on there, I knew his DNA was on that gun.
Whirley: How did you know his DNA was on the gun?
Wilson: When I first took it out, without even looking at it, I knew that he had fingerprints on it and possibly even sweat from, it was a warmer that day so, and he could have sweat on it. When I took it out, I also saw blood on it.
Whirley: And that could have been from when you shot him?
Wilson: Yes.
Whirley: So you made, but you knew to make the gun safe and put in an evidence envelop based on your training and experience?
Wilson: Yes, I was just trying to preserve all the evidence I could on the weapon. And I knew if I put it in an evidence envelop and sealed it, that it would have no other contact with anybody and it could be as preserved as you could get.
Whirley: Okay. All right. And then what?
Wilson: I sat down and called for my attorney, who represents police for the union. He said he would be on his way.
Officer [redacted] came in. He said, would you like to tell me what happened so I can tell the media? I said, no, I don’t want to talk right now.
Wilson: About 20 minutes later is when my attorney, showed up and we talked for about 10 or 15 minutes.
My assistant chief showed up, he came in and he made the determination that we should go to the hospital, he could see the swelling on my face.
So he drove, before we left, Detective [redacted] from St. Louis County [Police Department] arrived, informed us he would be investigating the case and kind of gave us the rundown of what to expect.
Whirley: Okay. And those photos that we looked at a minute ago were you at the hospital, correct?
Wilson: Yes, ma’am.
Whirley: And then what happened?
Wilson: At the hospital we did the interview. And when I went to the hospital, I didn’t wear my uniform shirt, I took that off and my vest off, left it at the station, left my duty belt at the station.
Whirley: Did someone tell you to do that?
Wilson: Yeah, and I felt more comfortable too because I obviously can’t wear my gun, and I don’t want to be in uniform after all of this without it. [emphasis added—AFB]
Whirley: Any other incidents where you have been involved where you had to use excessive force?
Wilson: I’ve never used my weapon before.
Whirley: Not excessive force, where you have had to use force to affect an arrest?
Wilson: I’ve used my asp [expandable baton] before, I have used my flashlight before and I have used OC [pepper spray] before.
Whirley: Okay. And in those incidents though, no one was injured?
Wilson: No.
At this point Wilson begins to take questions directly from the Grand Jury members, all of whose identities are, of course, redacted. Accordingly, I have simply labelled these queries as “GJ.” I’ve made my own guesses as to when questions came from different Grand Jury members, as indicated by breaks below.
GJ: I just, hopeful you don’t take any offense, I just have a question. You worked for Pine Lawn for eight hours, Jennings, you worked for Ferguson?
Wilson: Correct.
GJ: Have you always worked in predominantly African-American neighborhoods?
Wilson: Yes, I have.
GJ: No problem until this time?
Wilson: Correct.
GJ: I want to go back to when Sergeant [redacted] arrived there. You told him that you had to kill him. Was that the extent of your conversation or did you tell him sort of like you are telling us play by play what happened?
Wilson: No, it was very brief.
GJ: If you would go back to the contact in your car, after you had put it in reverse and reengaged to have a conversation, and Michael Brown reached into the car with his right hand and you said at a certain point that you looked in the mirror to see Dorian Johnson because that’s how you recognized him with his black shirt?
Wilson: I did that before the car was placed in reverse.
GJ: Go over that again with me, which mirror were you looking at?
Wilson: My driver’s side mirror on the outside of the car. Whenever they walked me and I saw the Cigarillos. I’d already say that Dorian Johnson had on a black shirt, but just to double-check myself to match up with what I heard Cigarillos had been stolen and a suspect wearing a black shirt, I looked to make sure the shirt was black. And then I canlled out for the assist car and then placedit in reverse and backed up to him.
GJ: Thank you.
Wilson: You’re welcome.
Alizadeh: Prior to today, at any time after this incident have you seen any reports of any kind, medical examiner’s reports, police reports, hospital reports, anything of that nature?
Wilson: the only report I’ve seen was the one released on the news about the initial stealing.
Alizadeh: Okay. So that is the Ferguson report that was filed in relation to the theft of the Cigarillos?
Wilson: Correct.
Alizadeh: The vehicle that you were in, I’m guessing that is not equipped with any cameras or mikes?
Wilson: No, it is not.
Alizadeh: Any of the Ferguson officer’s vehicles equipped with that type of equipment?
Wilson: No, ma’am.
Alizadeh: You don’t wear a body mike?
Wilson: No, ma’am.
Alizadeh: Now, your holster that you’ve described or your duty belt has the holster attached to it, correct?
Wilson: Correct.
Alizadeh: Is it the type of holster that there’s a snap that goes over the gun that you have to unsnap before the gun is removed from the holster?
Wilson: No, it doesn’t have the strap on the top, there is a button on the outside of it that you push as you are pulling up and it releases it.
Presumably he’s referencing a Sherpa holster.
Alizadeh: Okay. And is that something that, I mean, as a police officer, you have to train at the firing range, is that fair to say?
Wilson: Yes, ma’am.
Alizadeh: And is part of your training learning how to quickly get your gun out of your holster?
Wilson: Yes, ma’am.
Alizadeh: Did you ever grab ahold, you said that you grabbed ahold of his right hand at some point?
Wilson: It was like his forearm, it was this area.
Alizadeh: His right forearm?
Wilson: Yes, ma’am.
Alizadeh: And what were you doing when you grabbed ahold of his right forearm?
Wilson: Trying to move him and somewhat control him so I could get out of the car.
Alizadeh: Were you ever pulling him to try to pull him into the vehicle?
Wilson: No, I was trying to open my car door with my left hand and then hold onto him as I did so.
Whirley: You said you knew the area and you felt threatned in that area because there is violence and guns and everything, and that Michael Brown was being confrontational before the first blow, correct?
Wilson: Yes.
Whirley: Is there any reason why you didn’t wait in the car until your backup came?
Wilson: I thought I would be able to just stall until someone got there. It hought if I can get out of the car, I could maintain the distance that I need to maintain, they were close. I figure all I needed was 20 or 30 seconds and someone is going to be there.
Whirley: Right. So why wouldn’t you stay in the car?
Wilson: Because I had already been, my comfort zone is not to be sitting in the car talking to someone else. I wanted to be out of the car, that way if I need to run I can run.
Whirley: You can run?
Wilson: If I was out and he started like chasing me or went to hit me, I could move.
Whirley: You are in a car, you are most mobile in a car than you are on foot, right?
Wilson: Right. But I also didn’t want him to run away, so I need to kind of stay where I can keep him there, keep myself safe and wait for someone to get there.
Alizadeh: Now, Officer Wilson, I’m not trying to get in your head, I mean, I guess we all are trying to get in your head at some point to know what you’re thinking at the time, but, I mean, your initial confrontation or your initial contact with them, I mean, you didn’t see any of them with weapons, correct?
Wilson: No.
Alizadeh: And they weren’t subjects that you knew to be armed and dangerous?
Wilson: No.
Alizadeh: And you stop and encounter pedestrians probably almost on a daily basis when you’re on patrol, would that be fair to say.
Wilson: Yes.
Alizadeh: And so did you at that point have any reason to anticipate that this, that Michael Brown, the Michael Brown subject was going to provoke or be, or assault you?
Wilson: No, not at that moment, no.
Alizadeh: You described the first shot, was his right hand on the gun when the shot went off?
Wilson: I believe so.
Alizadeh: And then the second shot, was his body in contact with you on the second shot?
Wilson: Probably not on the second one. I know when I first pulled the trigger it was, but it didn’t shoot and then that’s when I racked the gun and then shot again.
Alizadeh: And you used both hands, yo had to use both hands to rack the gun?
Wilson: Yes, ma’am.
Alizadeh: Was he still trying to hit you when you went to rack the gun?
Wilson: I didn’t look up.
Alizadeh: Okay. So you said you did that without looking and then you just went like that?
Wilson: Yes.
Alizadeh: Turned your face away and shot out the window?
Wilson: Yes.
Alizadeh: In his general direction?
Wilson: Yes.
Alizadeh: And so you can’t really say whether his hands were inside the car or outside the car at the time you actually fired the second time, the second shot?
Wilson: No, I can’t tell you.
GJ: When Michael Brown, I guess, I guess at the point where I want to say it was the second shot, I know thi is kind of after the fact. You said he stepped back a little bit and then came back in on you?
Wilson: That was after the first shot.
GJ: Did you ever think about, I know you said your vehicle was running, did you ever just think about getting in that bad boy and drive?
Wilson: No, I didn’t. My thought is, I was still dealing with a threat at my car. You know, we’re trained not to run away from a threat, to deal with a threat, and that is what I was doing. That never entered my mind to flee.
GJ: Did you ever or do you recall grabbing Michael Brown by the throat?
Wilson: Never touched his throat.
GJ: Shoulder.
Wilson: No. Only part of him I touched was his right forearm.
GJ: When Michael Brown was running from you, after the shots were fired within the car and they both just disappeared and you had Michael in focus, did you ever at any time fire with his back facing you?
Wilson: No, I did not.
GJ: When you asked him to halt, and he turned around and he, you know, stopped running, at any point did you ever think that okay, maybe he don’t have a gun, I need to stop shooting?
Wilson: When he was running towards me?
GJ: Throughout the whole process. You’re in the car and someone, you’re struggling, tugging back and forth, did you ever think that he had a gun right then and there, he could have used it at any time?
Wilson: I wasn’t thinking about that at that time. I was thinking about defending myself whenever he was hitting me in the car.
GJ: So kind of going go on that as well. So the comment that you made to your supervisor Sergeant [redacted] when he got there at the scene was that he went for my gun, I had to shoot him. I think that kind of goes along with that. Because I think when I hear someone say he went for my gun, if I literally take that comment, I would assume that someone literally went to your holster and tried to pull it out. Either unholstering it or literally taking it from you.
And in this instance that was not the case. You had already unholstered and you were aiming at him. He essentially in his, your point of view and the point of view of who we can no longer obtain that, he deflected or pushed it towards you, but he did not at any point try to pull it from your holster, is I guess, my question?
Wilson: He didn’t pull it from my holster, but whenever it was visible to him, he then took complete control of it. Because he had twisted it around so my hand was no longer this way, it was bent this way and it was dug into my hip. He had complete control of the weapon at that time.
GJ: Was your hand, I’m sorry, was your hand still on it and trigger on the trigger.
Wilson: Yes, sir.
GJ: I wouldn’t say he had complete control, I would say he had some control.
Wilson: He was controlling where it went, how it went there, and his trigger was in the process of going on the trigger with mine.
GJ: Okay.
Wilson: I could feel his fingertips on my trigger trying to get in the trigger guard.
GJ: Okay. When I just hear the word complete control, I think it is entirely in his possession and none of yours, that’s the way I feel is complete control.
Wilson: Okay.
GJ: When you got back to the police department . . . did you ever think at what time that I need to write a report while it is fresh on my mind?
Wilson: No. The protocol is whenever you are involved in a significant use of force, that you contact your FOP representative and then he will advise you of what to do step by step because they are the clear head in that situation. They have not been through a traumatic experience.
Alizadeh: And I guess to be fair about this, any time any law enforcement officer has asked to speak to you, you have willingly and voluntarily come in and been interviewed and answered all their questions, is that fair to say?
Wilson: Yes, ma’am.
Alizadeh: Have you ever like, did you afterwards, you know, write this out for your own, you know, therapeutic needs?
Wilson: My statement has been written for my attorney.
Alizadeh: Okay. And that’s between you and your attorney then?
Wilson: Correct. The department has not asked me for anything.
Alizadeh: So no one has asked you to write out a statement?
Wilson: No, they haven’t.
Alizadeh: You didn’t just on your own decide I want to write this down while it is all fresh in my mind, you didn’t do that yourself?
Wilson: No.
Alizadeh: Now, you know, I know you’ve probably thought about this every day since it’s happened, would that be fair to say?
Wilson: Yes.
Alizadeh: Replayed this in your mind over and over again?
Wilson: Yes.
Alizdeh: And do you think that after having really through about this over time and basically you’ve had to tell this scenario a few times, do you think that if there are additional details that you may not give initially, do you think that’s because you’re just now remembering them because you are putting so much though into what happened or do you think that this is things that maybe you kind of imagined happened, but didn’t really happen, you understand my question.
Wilson: Yeah, just from what I have been told about the incident originally, is that you are supposed to have 72 hours before you are actually officially interviewed, recorded statement and all of that. You tend to remember more through a couple of sleep cycles then what you do as soon as it happens. It is a traumatic event, a lot of details kind of come as one detail. I mean, from what I understand, there hasn’t been really anything significant that’s changed.
Alizadeh: So you think that when you were testifying today you said you kind of thought, had a thought process. As this chaotic scene is unfolding, do you recall actually in your mind processing this in the way you’ve described or is it all just reactionary?
Wilson: No, I remember actually, I picture a use of force triangle [sic, usually referred to as a “use of force pyramid”] in my head when this first happened and I was going through the progression of what I could do as far as the use of force continuum is concerned.
Alizadeh: This is something you learned in the police academy then?
Wilson: Yes, ma’am.
Alizadeh: And you recall actually thinking that as this assault is occurring?
Wilson. Yes.
Whirley: At what point did the use of force triangle come into your head, what was going on when you start seeing the triangle?
Wilson: Whenever I first start considering the spray, the taser. That was when I was being hit after the one to my face.
Whirley: So that was before you went for the weapon, or before you struggled over the weapon you started thinking about the use of force triangle? At any point did Michael Brown raise his hands?
Wilson: No.
GJ: Did you ever think while you were firing that you could have hit another innocent standbyer. (sic)
Wilson: When I originally fired the first time, when he turned around and I raised my weapon, I remember looking behind him and seeing nothing. I didn’t see a car, I didn’t see a person, there is nothing behind him. And after the first round of shots, I had tunnel vision on his hand. After that, when I refocused, I still don’t remember ever seeing anybody behind him.
GJ: I understand that you did an interview August 28th with [redacted] FBI agent; is that correct?
Wilson: Yes.
GJ: Okay. At which time, I hope I’m getting this correct, I believe that there was, did they present to you a photo lineup of suspects or whatever?
Wilson: The Department of Justice did not.
GJ: The Department of Justice did not, what about the FBI?
Wilson: No.
Oofah. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is, of course, part of the Department of Justice.
GJ: You felt like your life was in jeopardy when you were sitting in the vehicle?
Wilson: Yes.
GJ: You felt like when you exited the vehicle and the interaction with Michael Brown, he was advancing towards you, you felt like your life was in jeopardy?
Wilson: Yes.
GJ: And use of deadly force was justified at that point in your opinion?
Wilson: Yes.
Whirley: Is there something that we have not asked you that you want us to know or you think it is important for the jurors to consider regarding this incident?
Wilson: One thing you guys haven’t asked that has been asked of me in other interviews is, was he a threat, was Michael Brown a threat when he was running away. People asked why would you chase him if he was running away now.
I had already called for assistance. If someone arrives and sees him running, another officer and goes around the back half of the apartment complexes and tries to stop him, what would stop him from doing what he just did to me to him or worse, knowing he has already done it to one cop. And that was, he still posed a threat, not only to me, to anybody else that confronted him.
GJ: Along those lines, you feel like as a police officer it is your obligation to follow that suspect?
Wilson: Yes, sir.
OK, folks that’s it for this post. Next I’ll cover some of the more interesting of the other witnesses who testified before the Grand Jury, including the purported “eye witnesses.”
Here’s the PDF of the official transcript of this portion of Wilson’s testimony:
–-Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
NEW! The Law of Self Defense proudly announces the launch of it’s online state-specific Law of Self Defense Webinars. These are interactive, online versions of the authoritative 5-hour-long state-specific Law of Self Defense Seminars that we give all over the country, but from the convenience of your laptop, tablet, or smartphone, and on your own schedule. Click over for more information on our state-specific Law of Self Defense Webinars, and get access to the ~20 minute Section 1. Introduction for free.
Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and the author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” available at the Law of Self Defense blog (autographed copies available) and Amazon.com (paperback and Kindle). He also holds Law of Self Defense Seminars around the country, and provides free online self-defense law video lectures at the Law of Self Defense Institute and podcasts through iTunes, Stitcher, and elsewhere.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I thought that the firearm in the photo with the holster looked familiar – HK, and not a Sig like Wilson had. Could easily be my USP Compact (except for the serial number that you can almost see).
AB – thanks again for the work here.
The thing that bothers me a bit is how much Wilson’s testimony, etc, tracks, almost word for word, each time. I couldn’t come close to that with saying the same thing in Aug, Sept, and now Nov. is this something you see a lot of with police, being the expert witnesses they are? You have a lot more experience in this area than I ever would have.
It may have something to do with training. I know that some people are capable of recalling a situation months and even years later without ever changing the story.
This is no reflection on Wilson, but this could be the result of good wood-shedding on the part of his legal team.
For instance, I NEVER tell a client WHAT they know, but I sure will teach them to tell the story effectively. They are NEVER to lie, but I will help them with their answers. They are taught to answer even very probing questions directly. We go over issues I know they will tend to be defensive about, and those are areas of particular concentration in role-playing.
At the end of that process, are my clients rehearsed? You damn betcha. But they’ve been told MANY times they are NEVER to lie. Where an answer hurts them, they have been taught to trust that we can deal with it truthfully.
At the end of that process, my clients SHOULD answer on any issue uniformly, because the answer has been drummed into them.
It can also be an aspect of the situation itself. I know from working in medicine that I can’t remember every bedpan, catheter, or injection I have given, but I have a clear memory of the 6 year old who drank rubbing alcohol and couldn’t breath on his own and I can tell you my exact reactions when we found a 13 year old who hung himself. So the incident itself probably plays some role.
In all honesty it is probably a combination of several factors and as Rags said good prep never hurt.
That incident is seared into his memory. I’m sure it is played out in his mind multiple times each day. He’s just replaying the tape.
Further to my first comment, I was involved in an incident that came within a hair’s breadth of going to lethal force and without looking at my police report, I could recite every detail as it is in that report. And it’s been 6 years. Wilson will never get this shooting out of his head. That doesn’t mean he will agonize over it. Just that it never leaves you.
A couple of things stand out here.
One is that Wilson answers questions directly and clearly, fairly often with a “Yes” or “No”. He’s not being cute or defensive.
Another is that he’s got a very clear recollection of stuff as it happened. Now, it would be totally natural for some of that to be “fill-in-the-blank”, but he apparently is a pretty clinical guy in crisis. This is a trait you often see in cops, paramedics, and firemen. Part of it is training, but a lot of it is just organic to some of us. Some of us get all freaked at the sight of blood, while some of us look for the source and how to contain it.
Experience helps too.
My Husband is like that. He was attacked a couple of years ago by a guy who was trying his best to kill him. He was interviewed in the ambulance by a police officer wearing a body cam and when I saw the video, I was amazed by the amount of detail he provided in a calm manner… down to the description of the vehicle the guy was driving and tag number. It took two years to get a conviction and he ended up taking a plea deal on the advice of his lawyer just hours after he interviewed my husband. He was dead set on taking it to trial until that interview. Hubby can’t remember to take the trash to the street on garbage day but he can damned sure remember the important stuff.
Toilet seat, too, amIrite…???
Husbands can be keenly astute and focused when they absolutely have to be. The rest of the time you could swear they are ADD.
I appreciate the presence of mind he demonstrated in his testimony by making the point on his own at the end about pursing the suspect for the safety of the public and other officers due to arrive at the complex for backup.
His clarity and directness were very good.
I wondered about his gun not firing on his first two trigger pulls. He referred to “clicks” when it didn’t go off. Brown having his hand on the slide would cause the weapon to cycle improperly but that wouldn’t keep it from firing the first round. “Click” makes me think the hammer was dropping. Did he not have a round in the chamber? Was Brown’s hand touching the hammer enough to cause a light primer strike? I don’t have P229 available so I don’t know but Sigs aren’t known for being unreliable. What do you think happened?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/evidence-released-in-michael-brown-case.html?_r=0
Grand Jury Volume V
Page 224
Wilson: I pulled the trigger and nothing happens, it just clicked. I pulled it again, it just clicked again.
At this point I’m like why isn’t this working, this guy is going to kill me if he gets ahold of this gun. I pulled it a third time, it goes off. When it went off, it shot through my door panel and my window was down and glass flew out of my door panel. I think that kind of startled him and me at the same time.
(Snip)
Wilson: He comes back towards me again with his hands up.
At that point I just went like this, I tried to pull the trigger again, click, nothing happened.
(He gets another punch to the face.)
Wilson: Without even looking, I just grab the top of my gun, the slide and I racked it, and I put my, still not looking just holding my hand up, I pulled the trigger again, it goes off.
Q: So how many times does it go off in the car?
Wilson: It went off twice in the car. Pull, click, click, went off, click, went off. So twice in the car.
Q: Are you certain?
Wilson: Yes.
I suspect his hand was blocking the hammer.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2014/11/ferguson-grand-jury-police-officers-account-of-shooting/comment-page-1/#comment-555078
That pretty well covers that water-front.
Just a small addenda…I’ve never tested this, but I bet I could prevent a shooter from firing a revolver, too.
you know Rags, the troll who is your shadow is a real pain where it hurts the most. I love your responses because they are always very clear in thought.
From the description I would think that Brown had pushed the slide partly out of battery (back toward Wilson a fraction of an inch). I carry 1911’s and that is a common problem if someone gets a hand on the top of your weapon while moving toward you. Same for the second failure to fire that was remedied by a tap-rack-bang drill. The slide needs most of the kinetic energy from firing to move completely to the rear extent of its travel. A hand on the slide or a “limp wrist” from trying to fire in a confined space while grappling with a suspect rather than from a braced position will absorb enough of that kinetic energy to prevent positive ejection and the loading of a new round from the magazine.
Wilson said his intent was to follow Brown, but wait for backup he knew was close by before taking him into custody with help. This is the exact right decision with a huge already violent offender. But Brown turned and charged, twice, forcing Wilson’s hand, before backup arrived…. 90 secs?…..later.
Brown is responsible for his own death. He sealed his fate when he decided to turn around and go after Wilson.
It’s what I’ve said for years about big guys – they should be nice to people, because if they get aggressive, they’re much more likely to be shot than an average or small guy. It’s a primal response. In this case, Wilson already had a taste of what Brown was serving.
Sounds like Trayvon Martin when he attacked George Zimmerman.
“People asked why would you chase him if he was running away now”
Umm…. isn’t that what cops are supposed to do ?
I heard that Brown’s mother said in effect ‘The cop should have left in his car, then my son would be alive’. Is that what cops are there for, to run away from trouble ? Hell, I do that now for free, and I don’t even get a cute little badge or anything for it.
That’s a reflection of delusion and abysmal ignorance.
That terminally insufferable Pally-punk who’s been all over the “unrest” in Ferguson said something on the same level; LEOs should shoot to apprehend, not to kill.
You’d think in a nation that has marinated in cop TV shows for several generations, a lot of this would be more clear. I guess this holes the hull of the notion that TV can teach.
Heh!
I don’t know about that, but it certainly holes the hull of the idea that anybody can be taught.
As I understand it, after Brown turned and charged, and Wilson had fired (maybe) five shots, Brown paused, and Wilson paused in shooting. Brown “reevaluated” and decided to keep charging.
It was that last set of shots that killed Brown, and if I heard correctly, the last was only maybe 10′ from Wilson. So even the libs in fantasy world should recognize, if being hit with several shots didn’t stop him (wasn’t “convincing”), only lethal force would.
Wilson also testified that he knew other leo’s would be arriving soon, and he wouldn’t want them to come across Brown and not realize how violent a man they were approaching. That sounded a little “coached” but accurate. It sorta refutes one of the (black, I think former cop) FOX guys that suggested he would have waited for back up rather than pursue alone.
What impairs liberals is magical thinking, very much like the 16 year old couple who want to quit school to get married and live on his 20 hour/week job bagging groceries. Wanting that is fine. Believing that will happen takes the magical thinking of goony-eyed teen lovers.
All this Monday morning quarterbacking by libs requires officers to know in advance that the ongoing current mission is one that will end fatally and attract exploitation artists from politics and media. They don’t expect cops to do nothing EVERY time they meet resistance, they only expect it THIS time. THIS time they’ve become emotionally involved, so it matters because it’s affecting.. well, them. They expect officers to know in advance which event will be a media darling case and lay off and not participate, dammit. It’s magic! Forecasting the future!
We need to defend adjudicated ‘good shoots’ ONCE, refusing to discuss it as if it’s still pretrial and debatable unless and until new evidence arises of sufficient quality to get the case reopened, because that does legitimately happen from time to time. But how often do we explain that the sky is blue to the same person(s)?
Nope, it’s Brown/Wilson, good shoot, GJ decision. Finis. Wanna argue it? Take new evidence to court.
How stupid has American society become?
The Liberal part of it, I mean.
A grand Jury reviewed evidence for months.
Five thousand pages !!!!
It’s all a useless mountain of nothing for Liberals and race baiters. For them it all boils down to two facts:
1- Shooter is white.
2- Cadaver is black.
All the rest of the facts and evidence?
Who cares? Burn it!! And burn the white shooter with it. F..k due process. F..k the rule of law.
It seems like a trend.
Maybe we should give them credit for consistency. They did not bother to read obamacare either.
“It’s the King’s baby. You’ve gotta pass it first to find out what’s in it.”
“It’s Narcissus’ idea. It can’t be bad…. Narcissus is never wrong….. Narcissus is perfect …… Heil Narcissus!”
I am sorry you feel the system is one sided and that at this point it appears to be benefiting the “liberals”. But, aside from our personal perspectives certain questions are arising from this case. Would an officer, who had been investigated internally on another prior investigation, whereby he and a couple of other officers had allegedly used racial slurs and left an arresting party brain dead, not consider, he had been investigated for deadly force? Does purely because a gun was not used in that instance, justify saying he was never investigated? Do Police Officers check for a pulse of an assailant whether or not his/her shots were fatal? Do they call for an abulance? If approaching a potential suspect in an area known for drugs, violence and gangs, do they approach without asking for assistance? If the suspect is assumed to be visually large does a Police Officer allow the suspect to come to the driver side window? Are Police Officers afforded to select which items of self protection or assailant apprehension he or she uses? For instance, if an officer is visually impaired …could s/he choose not to use mace? If s/he did not prefer to use a tazor because of its inconvenient placement on his/her belt, is it standard protocol for the officer to choose not to wear it? If a Police Officers baton does not expand conveniently does that deem it an ineffective tool? My personal concern is that a Police Officer is a public servant, first….it is just the chosen task of the profession. But, the gun is lethal and if it is the Police Officers only preferred method of apprehension of assailants, than the chances of that person be apprehended alive, if unarmed are slim to none. We all deserve a chance as human beings to repair the errors of youthful folly. It is disparaging to think that our nation has been incited to this point, while the Police Department in that community treated the death of the young man as so insignificant they sent the Police Officer back to the station alone, only to have to handle and bag his own evidence. Yes, our youth in many areas are disgusted with the economy, their parents, the system, but they are young. They should no rightfully be labeled as dangerous for being in the hood as a hillbilly, being labeled as heinous for living in the hills. I expect more from Police Departments. I expect Police Officers to follow the guidelines, to protect themselves…yes. But, to be, more, realize that labeling and named calling is not for the educated but, for the ignorant. I need to know that when Police Officers go to work everyday, they protect their own, but, they protect the people they serve as well, without prejudice. The kids in the street don’t sign up to protect Police Officers their mind set is different. They are young, like we all have been or still are. I need to know, life is respected on all levels, the Police Officer and a Citizen. Lethal force should be an OPTION not a preference.
How does the initial interview in the hospital stand up to Officer Wilson’s other testimony?
How does the initial interview in the hospital stand up to Officer Wilson’s other testimony? Are there any transcripts of that?
Funny (peculiar) how life can be. If Officer Wilson and George Zimmerman had “just stayed in the car/truck, then my son would be alive today.”
It is surely convenient to ignore the other part of the story: the assault perpetrated by the deceased. Funny (peculiar) how none of my Progressive friends want to discuss that particular point of personal responsibility.
The simplest answer to that or the simple-minded libtards is to just say, “If that’s your true thinking, go a step further. Both Trayvon and Mike should have stayed home.”
I noticed that the Prosecutor asked Wilson if he had ever “had to use excessive force” before. Very poor phrasing on their part. Also, I noticed that Wilson did very well with the couple of “gotcha” questions that where thrown at him.
In going through the GJ transcripts and various commentary. I notice ‘stealing’ being used by many people. “I knew they were already in the area for the stealing that was originally reported.” As a former New Yorker this seems particular to me. Is that a mid-west colloquialism or does it imply some distinguishing aspect of the nature of the original strong-arm robber at the market?
I actually wondered if it might be a tactic given to him by his Lawyer. Say stealing instead of theft or robbery because it doesn’t sound as bad. Now that is complete speculation on my part.
I wondered about the “stealing”. My thoughts were that maybe they didn’t realize yet that it was technically a strong armed robbery. The legal definition of second degree robbery in MO is essentially theft/stealing plus force or threat of force. If that is the case though, it means that Wilson only knew that they had stolen the cigars (or whatever) from the (recently burned out) convenience store, which would have been a misdemeanor, and not a Class B felony, which is what a strong armed robbery is in MO. And, that may have some bearing on how Wilson (re)approached the two suspects. A non-violent misdemeanor is one thing, and a violent felony is something else.
You’ve got it.
It also illustrates Wilson’s POV about the stop versus Brown’s POV about the stop.
As an aside, Wilson’s plain, simple but clear and direct language from a small-town cop was an asset during his testimony and his ABC interview.
“Wilson’s plain, simple but clear and direct language from a small-town cop”
And maybe some good instruction from guys like Ragspierre.
Maybe he could have spoken so concisely on his own, but I’m guessing he had good help. I don’t like many things about public unions, but they got Wilson good representation (imo), which only “perhaps” Ferguson police dept. would have done. And they had to take on Holder/Sharpton and maybe Hamas/Anonymous.
The battle seems to be whether the gangs “control” these neighborhoods, or the cops. Brown and all that gave false testimony seem to side with the gangs, if only out of fear.
Wilson was speaking of his thought process at the time of the incident, a time when he didn’t know what degree of theft had been committed. This lack of distinction in his description actually enhances the honesty of his testimony in a very subtle way. He hadn’t seen the video when he encountered Borwn. There was simply a call about cigarillos being stolen from Ferguson Market.
Something I thought was “off” about one of Officer Wilson’s responses to the GJ was his comment about Mike Brown looking like a “demon”. It seemed a little dramatic in contrast to what I had heard and read of his testimony. But I saw a picture today that I had not seen before anywhere and that made it clear (to me anyway) that it wasn’t. Has anyone here seen it before? The link is to the smoking gun, btw.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/darren-wilson/witnesss-said-brown-charged-wilson-897043
Oh, nevermind. I went back and looked again at the pic and I think they photoshopped it. So sorry for being so gullible. I’ll go back to reading now. {embarrassed}