AllThingsKC wrote:phuqueue wrote: The point is that they aren't relevant and only serve to turn people against Brown as a person.
Can't the same be said of the "eye-witnesses" in that they only serve to turn people against Wilson as a person?
If Wilson feels his name is being dragged through the mud by eyewitnesses who describe his killing of an unarmed person, he probably shouldn't have killed an unarmed person. If Brown had, say, committed an armed robbery and was killed in the act or while trying to flee or whatever, the robbery would be germane. What Brown is alleged to have actually done is committed petit larceny which, due to a shove at the end of the act, might be second degree robbery ("forcibly" stealing property), but which the cops have consistently called "strong-arm robbery" (an offense that does not exist in MO, but that definitely sounds worse than "he stole fifty dollars worth of cigars and shoved the clerk on his way out"). And by the cops' own admission, Wilson did not know about the alleged robbery at the time of the shooting, which means that it is not pertinent in any way. It doesn't matter whether it happened ten minutes or ten years before he was killed. The only reason to bring it up is to paint Brown as a "bad person," which makes it much easier for some people to accept that he was killed. None of this is actually germane to why or how Wilson killed him. On the other hand, why and how Wilson killed him is certainly germane to why and how Wilson killed him. I can't believe this has to be explained.
Oh, but could be related. If you had just shoplifted and were high and a cop approaches you, you would probably think it had something to do with the shoplifting or being high. So, it wouldn't be illogical to think Brown's actions with the cop (whatever they were) could have been impacted by his actions 10 minutes earlier. Maybe he would have reacted differently if he hadn't just shoplifted or been high. If Wilson goes to trial, I'm willing to bet the defense would make that argument. It's not a strong argument, but not necessarily unrelated either.
It goes back to my point that when someone is involved in questionable activity, the chances of something bad and unfair happening are much higher than if they had obeyed the law the whole time. It's unfair and unfortunate, but that's life sometimes.
If you were walking in the middle of the street and a cop approaches you and tells you to get the fuck out of the street you would probably think his approaching you had something to do with your being in the middle of the street, actually. As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence that Brown was high at the time of his death. Even the reprehensible NYT "he was no angel" article explicitly says that he "dabbled," which suggests infrequent and irregular use. That marijuana came up in his toxicology screen means pretty much nothing, since marijuana remains in your system for some time after use. Of course, this is all secondary to the fact that harping on his marijuana use is more dog whistle bullshit. When white people use marijuana, they're portrayed as silly, docile, hungry idiots. When black people use marijuana, we suddenly act like it's the same thing as PCP.
It actually makes much more sense to suggest that he would have acted differently if he
had shoplifted or been high. Wouldn't somebody in that situation probably try to keep a low profile instead of becoming confrontational with the police? Would somebody whose alleged crime was to take fifty dollars worth of cigars immediately jump to thinking that he has to kill a cop to make his escape?
For those keeping score at home, the story put out by the cops + Wilson's supposed friend comes out this way:
Brown robbed a convenience store > jaywalked > started a fight with a cop > tried to steal the cop's gun > the cop shot at him during the fight > Brown ran away > then turned around and started taunting the cop that "you won't shoot me" > then charged the cop who had already fired at him once before and got killed
Yup, that all sounds very plausible, hangs together very well.
Being under the influence, Michael Brown could have reacted in either a more threatening way or a more relaxed way (depending on what affect marijuana had on him). Either way, being high could have caused him to act in a manner in which he normally may not have acted. THIS DOES NOT MEAN HE WAS MOTIVATED TO MURDER THE COP. Maybe he was more relaxed with the cop because he was high or maybe he was more threatening with the cop because he was high. Who knows?
Marijuana doesn't make people violent.
Anyway you already feel his side is lying so why reinforce your argument.
His "side" is an anonymous phone call purporting to be his friend. There hasn't even been any official endorsement of that story by Wilson or the police department. As far as I'm aware, the police department has not yet updated its official story, which is reasonably detailed up until the point where Wilson fires at Brown at the car. Then it skips to "more than a couple shots were fired" without explaining how Brown ended up 35 feet away, where Wilson was, or anything else. The police story differs greatly from Dorian Johnson's as to how the altercation began, who was the initial aggressor, etc, but none of these facts are actually pertinent if Brown ran away from the fight at the car. Even if the PD version up to this point is correct, it doesn't tell us anything re: whether or not Wilson's actions were justified. The fact that the PD has been silent on what happened next is telling in itself. In fact, the complete and utter lack of transparency on the part of the PD through this entire situation should not inspire any confidence.
