As a child, I always grew up with the impression that America is the greatest nation in the world. In some ways, I still believe that this is true. However, in recent years, whether my maturity has made me more aware, or problematic situations have actually increased, I have discovered that the U.S. has many unfortunate faults. Specifically, cases of police brutality have seemingly been hitting the news in rapid succession within the past year or so, especially after cases like Michael Brown's in 2014. As an American citizen of color, I can truly acknowledge that I have developed a fear of what police officers are capable of, as a result of these horrifying incidents of violence. Just a couple weeks ago, I was in the car with a friend (also of color, if I should add) driving home, when she was pulled over for expired license plates. Immediately, I grew nervous just because I knew that anything could happen, promptly thinking about the recent tendencies of police violence. Just a moment later, I found myself sighing in relief when I saw that the police officer approaching the window was black. In what way, shape, or form is this mindset okay? Being half white and half black, it pains me to see such collision between the two groups. No human being deserves to be unnecessarily manhandled, beaten, or murdered by any other human being, including police officers. I dream of living in an America where I do not fear for my life from those meant to protect it.
In an event that happened in "less than a minute" as the officer testified, he shot an unarmed man 12 times. And this acceptable procedure for police officers?
Watched this. Read the DOJ report. Read many of these comments. While I don't watch it, I can't imagine that "Fair and Balanced" on Fox News is any more slanted than this Opinion/Propaganda piece.
It seems with the internet the NYTimes no longer cares about the "fit to print" qualification on its efforts (I would like to say "reporting", but this isn't that; I would try "journalism", but this even fails at that.
It seems with the internet the NYTimes no longer cares about the "fit to print" qualification on its efforts (I would like to say "reporting", but this isn't that; I would try "journalism", but this even fails at that.
4
Personal responsibility. Why is it that many black criminals invoke race instead of taking responsibility for their actions? Why are their choices not questioned? Why are they constantly allowed to invoke racism as an excuse for their behavior? Am I responsible for the murders between Crips and Bloods? What about the out of control gun violence on the south side of Chicago. It's black on black. One 7 year old black boy was shot and killed by a rival of his gang banging father. So the child paid for the sins of the father with his life.
Michael Brown was an imposing young man. Around 6'5' and close to 300 pounds. How many of you would not be intimidated? What would you have done if he had try to take your service revolver? Let him have it in a sign of good faith?
Obama couldn't send Holder fast enough to Ferguson. He thought he had a slam dunk civil rights complaint. And when the DOJ did not find Wilson guilty? We get comments from liberals who will claim the investigation was rigged but who would have applauded it if Wilson had been found guilty.
You've never seen the evidence before the grand jury, you didn't read the DOJ report but you know better than trained professionals.
If you want to know who the real racists are, look at the comments by people who refuse the evidence outright. They are the ones who refuse to accept the truth and hide behind racism because that' s the only thing they have.
Michael Brown was an imposing young man. Around 6'5' and close to 300 pounds. How many of you would not be intimidated? What would you have done if he had try to take your service revolver? Let him have it in a sign of good faith?
Obama couldn't send Holder fast enough to Ferguson. He thought he had a slam dunk civil rights complaint. And when the DOJ did not find Wilson guilty? We get comments from liberals who will claim the investigation was rigged but who would have applauded it if Wilson had been found guilty.
You've never seen the evidence before the grand jury, you didn't read the DOJ report but you know better than trained professionals.
If you want to know who the real racists are, look at the comments by people who refuse the evidence outright. They are the ones who refuse to accept the truth and hide behind racism because that' s the only thing they have.
5
It is really is sad that people created this exaggerated and fallacious racial narrative that people continue to believe regardless of these facts. If liberal groups really care about black life, they need to discourage the behavior that leads to altercations. Unfortunately, situations like this continue to happen and will continue to happen.
1
Another white cop shot and killed by a black man. This time in Shreveport, LA. That makes two in two weeks. Where is the outrage by Mr. Blow and the NYT?
4
What can I conclude: people lie, especially when they want to advance an agenda. The sad part is how the NY Times continues to peddle a discredited and biased viewpoint, even though it is factually incorrect.
This isn't journalism; it is advocacy and manipulation.
This isn't journalism; it is advocacy and manipulation.
4
Once Brown went after the policeman in his vehicle and struck him, he became a violent offender in the eyes of the law and put himself in harm's way.
Could this have had a different outcome? Sure. There are points where either man COULD have changed the dynamic--but the truth is Michael Brown was going to be arrested for theft at a minimum and as Brown escalated the confrontation by assaulting the officer, he was also going to be arrested for assault.
Police officers know that felons who assault them--the very symbols of community authority and law--are very dangerous folks who may well do it again.
The officer had no choice as to whether he tried to follow and arrest Brown for a dangerous felony. That was his job.
Could this have had a different outcome? Sure. There are points where either man COULD have changed the dynamic--but the truth is Michael Brown was going to be arrested for theft at a minimum and as Brown escalated the confrontation by assaulting the officer, he was also going to be arrested for assault.
Police officers know that felons who assault them--the very symbols of community authority and law--are very dangerous folks who may well do it again.
The officer had no choice as to whether he tried to follow and arrest Brown for a dangerous felony. That was his job.
4
This appears to be impressive; but I won't ever know: Like many other people, I'm hard of hearing. Your little movie needs English subtitles.
There have been some pretty egregious examples of unjustified police use of force in the past year, but honestly, this does not appear to be one of them. Not only did Dorian Johnson initially say that Michael Brown was shot in the back while standing with his hands up (indeed, I saw him say this on television), the blood evidence clearly showed that Michael Brown advanced towards officer Wilson after he was shot in the torso the first time (there was blood spatter about 21 feet from where Wilson fired, as determined by where his shell casings were found; Mr. Brown went down about eight feet from that spot). There have been a number of apparently egregiously excessive police use of force cases publicized in the past year, I can't understand why the Times is focusing on this case in which the shooting was clearly justified.
2
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/hlmencke129796.html#espmLQQP1...
There is no way to boil this down to as to who was right or wrong. Economics, sociology, psychology, fear, poverty, racial bias ( bilateral) stereotypy, personality ( bilateral) physiology ( adrenalin...bilateral) played a role in this.
Every day when a police officer in this country wakes up and goes to work there must be some fleeting thought it may be their last. And he/ she has a gun.
Mr. Brown had just stolen something and struck a person, he was adrenalized.
Officer Wilson if he had used the f-bomb began an escalation from his side.
Mr. Wilson, by not responding to the order from the Officer, escalated the situation. The knowledge that Mr. Brown was the perpetrator in the theft, when it dawned on the Officer, increased the tension. The laying on of hands by Mr. Brown escalated the situation. The situation was in a serious and rapid downward spiral. It could have been stopped by either party. The Officer could have desisted after the shots were fired in the car and called for back-up.
Why didn't one or the other stop? See the 2nd paragraph.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/hlmencke129796.html#espmLQQP1...
There is no way to boil this down to as to who was right or wrong. Economics, sociology, psychology, fear, poverty, racial bias ( bilateral) stereotypy, personality ( bilateral) physiology ( adrenalin...bilateral) played a role in this.
Every day when a police officer in this country wakes up and goes to work there must be some fleeting thought it may be their last. And he/ she has a gun.
Mr. Brown had just stolen something and struck a person, he was adrenalized.
Officer Wilson if he had used the f-bomb began an escalation from his side.
Mr. Wilson, by not responding to the order from the Officer, escalated the situation. The knowledge that Mr. Brown was the perpetrator in the theft, when it dawned on the Officer, increased the tension. The laying on of hands by Mr. Brown escalated the situation. The situation was in a serious and rapid downward spiral. It could have been stopped by either party. The Officer could have desisted after the shots were fired in the car and called for back-up.
Why didn't one or the other stop? See the 2nd paragraph.
1
Michael Brown wasn't out looking for a job the day he was killed, he was up to no good and armed with brawn and bullying before he began arguing with the police.
1
It's been a while since I read the Ferguson grand jury testimony, but I think that Mr. Weiner's video excerpts leave out important facts and present an account which inaccurately credits the testimony of Mr. Johnson.
For example: [i] there were eyewitness accounts which directly contradicted Mr. Johnson's account of what happened in the street that morning; [ii] Mr. Johnson testified that both he and Mr. Brown had been smoking marijuana in Mr. Johnson's apartment before going out to the convenience store where the robbery took place; and [iii] the publicly available videotape of the robbery at the convenience store, which the grand jury also saw, clearly [I believe] showed that immediately before his encounter with Officer Wilson, Mr. Brown was in an extremely agitated and aggressive state.
I recall that my conclusion, after reviewing his grand jury testimony, was that Mr. Johnson was not telling the truth.
For example: [i] there were eyewitness accounts which directly contradicted Mr. Johnson's account of what happened in the street that morning; [ii] Mr. Johnson testified that both he and Mr. Brown had been smoking marijuana in Mr. Johnson's apartment before going out to the convenience store where the robbery took place; and [iii] the publicly available videotape of the robbery at the convenience store, which the grand jury also saw, clearly [I believe] showed that immediately before his encounter with Officer Wilson, Mr. Brown was in an extremely agitated and aggressive state.
I recall that my conclusion, after reviewing his grand jury testimony, was that Mr. Johnson was not telling the truth.
2
A decision was made to fire 12 rounds and kill a man in less than one minute?!
When there was no weapon in sight, no immediate threat of death or debilitating injury and the victim, after being shot, turned around to face the cop, only to receive 5 more bullets, in addition to the one already given him, for essentially wavering around after being shot?!
I am not saying Michael Brown was an angel, but death for lifting a package of cigarillos?!
And Darren Wilson, does he not expect to be cursed at when he showed the first signs of hostility? Is he not trained how to protect himself without a gun, taser or baton? He's a police officer--an alleged peacekeeper--and not an assassin.
It's the officer's duty to always take the higher ground, and cause no harm (if possible). Darren Wilson's fear and adrenalin took over, and he had inadequate training in self-protection and verbal negotation.
A guy who shoots as he did clearly has no business being a police officer, unless he is behind a desk.
And clearly, better training in people skills and options other than use of violent force need to be taught to U.S. police officers.
When there was no weapon in sight, no immediate threat of death or debilitating injury and the victim, after being shot, turned around to face the cop, only to receive 5 more bullets, in addition to the one already given him, for essentially wavering around after being shot?!
I am not saying Michael Brown was an angel, but death for lifting a package of cigarillos?!
And Darren Wilson, does he not expect to be cursed at when he showed the first signs of hostility? Is he not trained how to protect himself without a gun, taser or baton? He's a police officer--an alleged peacekeeper--and not an assassin.
It's the officer's duty to always take the higher ground, and cause no harm (if possible). Darren Wilson's fear and adrenalin took over, and he had inadequate training in self-protection and verbal negotation.
A guy who shoots as he did clearly has no business being a police officer, unless he is behind a desk.
And clearly, better training in people skills and options other than use of violent force need to be taught to U.S. police officers.
1
Seeing as the forensic evidence (science) supported Officer Wilson's story I would have to say this video is "science fiction".
8
Thank heavens I did my own research on the case and am not take-in by the NYT's biased video.
6
Whether or not Michael Brown stole cigarillos from a convenience store the day of his death has zero bearing on the appropriateness of his shooting by Officer Wilson later that day, and the efforts in this comment thread and in the media to justify or qualify his murder on the basis that he had recently committed misdemeanor theft are foolish and disingenuous. Thousands of people across the country commit petty larceny every day, and the idea that their murder by a police officer should be any more justified than if they hadn't committed theft is absurd. I doubt there's a single commenter on this thread who would agree that the police ought to have the right to shoot and kill anyone who commits a misdemeanor offense. For millions of black Americans, though, that's the message sent by this case -- and the scores of others similar to it happening across the country in this very difficult time.
1
He wasn't killed over the cigarillos. He was killed because he assaulted a police officer and tried to take his gun. The cigarillos only add to the narrative that he wasn't the innocent young man his supporters claim he was.
1
Darren Wilson had months to ready his version of this tragedy,because when a cop shoots someone he has several layers of protection not afforded any other citizens. I followed the events of Ferguson very closely and the first few news confrences by the Chief he stated that Wilson didn't know about the theft when he stopped Michael Brown. After the Justice Departments scathing report how could Wilson be beleived.
1
Dorian Johnson was never a credible witness. As he was trotted out to give his version of events immediately after the shooting, anyone who listened could hear his account starting to make Officer Wilson bigger and badder each time he opened his mouth. The Grand Jury, like the majority of Americans, did not believe a word out of his mouth. All most reasonable people needed to see was Mike Brown stealing and intimidating the store clerk minutes before the shooting to know who and what he was. I'm just sorry that Officer Wilson's life had to be destroyed in this whole process.
4
This is only a deceptive propaganda video: the actual forensic evidence which confirmed the real progression of events was not included. So why was this video made and presented by the New York Times? Why are we trying to revive a case that was concluded through the Grand Jury and the legal system? It is very obvious that Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson were looking for trouble and not innocents out for a walk. It is also obvious that Officer Wilson had good reason to fear for his life.
What happened to the New York Times to go against the conclusions of the legal system and make it complicit with deception and incitement?
What happened to the New York Times to go against the conclusions of the legal system and make it complicit with deception and incitement?
6
If only Michael Brown had paid for his cigars instead of stealing them and assaulting the owner, then a police officer.
11
You know about as much that happened in that exchange between Brown and Wilson as I do which is nothing. But what we do know from recent taped incidents is that when Police Officer do wrong on the job, they lie and their colleagues cover up for them.
1
Re: "Verbatim: The Ferguson Case," by Brett Weiner (Op-Docs), August 5, 2015.
In "The Cop"(The New Yorker, Aug. 10 and 17), Jake Halpern provides us a detailed account of the encounter in Ferguson between officer Darren Wilson and Michael Brown that led to the latter's death. A crucial question Halpern fails to ask Wilson is: "Why did you come out of the car when Michael Brown, his hand bleeding, was running away?"
If Wilson were a thoughtful police officer, who wanted to save a young offender's life, he would have asked for backup so Brown could be stopped and arrested for shoplifting and attacking a cop. Instead, officer Wilson deliberately chose to have a second encounter with Brown, with a loaded gun pointed at his young adversary. He wanted revenge for Brown's assaulting him in the car, not save a wayward black youth's life and help him turn over a new leaf.
Educated, Confident, polite, broad-minded and warm-hearted cops don't kill; they help young offenders change into responsible citizens.
In "The Cop"(The New Yorker, Aug. 10 and 17), Jake Halpern provides us a detailed account of the encounter in Ferguson between officer Darren Wilson and Michael Brown that led to the latter's death. A crucial question Halpern fails to ask Wilson is: "Why did you come out of the car when Michael Brown, his hand bleeding, was running away?"
If Wilson were a thoughtful police officer, who wanted to save a young offender's life, he would have asked for backup so Brown could be stopped and arrested for shoplifting and attacking a cop. Instead, officer Wilson deliberately chose to have a second encounter with Brown, with a loaded gun pointed at his young adversary. He wanted revenge for Brown's assaulting him in the car, not save a wayward black youth's life and help him turn over a new leaf.
Educated, Confident, polite, broad-minded and warm-hearted cops don't kill; they help young offenders change into responsible citizens.
3
Educated, Confident, polite, broad-minded and warm-hearted cops don't kill; they help young offenders change into responsible citizens.
OK. but do polilte and civilized teenagers rob, beat store clerks, attack police officers and try to take their weapons so they can kill them with it?
Now, who is the less civilized of the two.
OK. but do polilte and civilized teenagers rob, beat store clerks, attack police officers and try to take their weapons so they can kill them with it?
Now, who is the less civilized of the two.
1
So you are of the opinion that if a cop attempts to arrest a criminal, and the criminal fights the cop and then starts to run away, the cop should just call on the radio for somebody else to go look for and try to arrest the criminal. Hoping that the next encounter the criminal will not fight back.
Is that how you envision it should be?
Is that how you envision it should be?
1
Seeing this did change my perspective. Prior to this it was not clear to me that Michael uncontrovertably reached into the car, put his hand on the gun, and struck Darren in the face. Nothing Dorian says in the video contradicts that. I don't see any villains or heroes. Teenagers shouldn't be killed for shoplifting. Citizens shouldn't do what Michael apparently did in assaulting an officer. Police officers should know their responsibility is to DEescalate a situation. Darren was in over his head; he was obviously scared witless and hadn't the sense or ability to defuse the situation. an older, more experienced officer may certainly have handled the situation differently, or should have. But the facts of this case are certainly much more complicated than those for Mr. Garner or Mr. DeNise.
4
Looking forward to the similar interest in this case.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/06/22/mistake-over...
Curiously, the death of this unarmed child at the hands of the police produced no riots, no statements from the White House, no national protests. The dead teen remains anonymous, not a household name. The usual "civil rights" suspects haven't weighed in at all. No one is holding up signs asserting the his life mattered.
Why do you suppose that might be?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/06/22/mistake-over...
Curiously, the death of this unarmed child at the hands of the police produced no riots, no statements from the White House, no national protests. The dead teen remains anonymous, not a household name. The usual "civil rights" suspects haven't weighed in at all. No one is holding up signs asserting the his life mattered.
Why do you suppose that might be?
10
Unarmed child ? He was a creepy thug. Have you read the witness statements ?
1
These slices of testimony do not reveal the truth or "what exactly happened". The DOJ said Johnson was not credible but you give him center stage. They also found that the officers statements were generally consistent with the forensics and most witness accounts.
This approach strengthens a lie told by a liar. Whoever conceived and authorized this type of dramatization of two versions of what happened reflects poor journalistic judgment. What's filmed does not give insight into the weight of all the evidence and the totality of testimony, it gives a biased, distorted view of one discredited version. There is no truth to be found in these re-enactments. If there was any substantial evidence against the officer, the DOJ would have pursued it. End of story.
This approach strengthens a lie told by a liar. Whoever conceived and authorized this type of dramatization of two versions of what happened reflects poor journalistic judgment. What's filmed does not give insight into the weight of all the evidence and the totality of testimony, it gives a biased, distorted view of one discredited version. There is no truth to be found in these re-enactments. If there was any substantial evidence against the officer, the DOJ would have pursued it. End of story.
18
You have to read all of the transcripts from the Grand Jury testimony to get a better picture. Yes, I did, as tedious as it was at times.
There was one conflict, in particular, that to me demonstrate that Darren Wilson was lying. He testified that he wouldn't get back in his vehicle after the shooting, because he didn't want to mess with the evidence.
But when his boss, the Sargent on duty, arrive at the scene, he went into significant detail about finding Wilson in his vehicle.
This isn't the type of memory that is impacted by the emotion of the moment. This is testimony that contradicted each other.
If one makes an assumption that the Sargent had no reason to lie, then Wilson was lying. If you extrapolate backwards from this assumption, throughout his testimony you start to see breaks in all of it. Inconsistencies that aren't glaring at first, but become more so when you look at all of the transcripts.
It's just unfortunate that people focused so much on Johnson, and not enough on all the testimony, even the seemingly mundane.
There was one conflict, in particular, that to me demonstrate that Darren Wilson was lying. He testified that he wouldn't get back in his vehicle after the shooting, because he didn't want to mess with the evidence.
But when his boss, the Sargent on duty, arrive at the scene, he went into significant detail about finding Wilson in his vehicle.
This isn't the type of memory that is impacted by the emotion of the moment. This is testimony that contradicted each other.
If one makes an assumption that the Sargent had no reason to lie, then Wilson was lying. If you extrapolate backwards from this assumption, throughout his testimony you start to see breaks in all of it. Inconsistencies that aren't glaring at first, but become more so when you look at all of the transcripts.
It's just unfortunate that people focused so much on Johnson, and not enough on all the testimony, even the seemingly mundane.
5
We make laws to set boundaries for the good of the many and the few. We hire police to enforce those laws. If a law is needless, move it off the books. Un signaled lane changes are dangerous, driving drunk is dangerous, shoplifting effects all of us, being assaulted is nothing any of us needs to endure. Hence we hire police to see these things don't happen or to make the perpetrators responsible.
There should be no group of people who get a free ride for engaging in these behaviors. We don't hire police to ignore theft, drunk drivers or anyone breaking the laws we have deemed appropriate. Or they could sit in the station house and drink coffee.
We also do not expect them to seek out some offenders and let others slide.
So, in each of the situations alluded to, the 'stop' was reasonable. So what went wrong. Lives were lost and careers ended. No one won...everyone lost.
I am old. I have had many interactions with the police. My sole ticket in 50 years, from a camera. I was never stopped for something I wasn't doing. I was responsible for my behavior and I accepted that. It was not the officer.
What went wrong here happened after the stop. So who did what? Who pushed what buttons?
I have two dogs. A 140 pound Rottie and 11 pound Papillion, guess which is more apt to bite? Which one people think is dangerous?
Each of us responds to the statistics and possible danger. If my Rottie growls, it is trouble.
There should be no group of people who get a free ride for engaging in these behaviors. We don't hire police to ignore theft, drunk drivers or anyone breaking the laws we have deemed appropriate. Or they could sit in the station house and drink coffee.
We also do not expect them to seek out some offenders and let others slide.
So, in each of the situations alluded to, the 'stop' was reasonable. So what went wrong. Lives were lost and careers ended. No one won...everyone lost.
I am old. I have had many interactions with the police. My sole ticket in 50 years, from a camera. I was never stopped for something I wasn't doing. I was responsible for my behavior and I accepted that. It was not the officer.
What went wrong here happened after the stop. So who did what? Who pushed what buttons?
I have two dogs. A 140 pound Rottie and 11 pound Papillion, guess which is more apt to bite? Which one people think is dangerous?
Each of us responds to the statistics and possible danger. If my Rottie growls, it is trouble.
4
I can't decide whether this op-ed is a remarkable success or an abject failure. Each of the two witnesses had reason to shape the reality to his needs, so other witnesses, as well as forensic evidence, both of which tended to support the police officer's version in this case, showed the limitations of eye-witness accounts.
The article and video pale, however, next to the comments, in terms of what they reveal. Many commenters -- on both sides of the issue -- reinforced the research which shows that people will hold onto a belief despite facts that prove that belief to be incorrect. People -- again on both sides -- came into this discussion biased, and left biased.
Some drew opposite conclusions about the meaning of what they saw. Some inserted their own versions of the story. More than one accused The Times or the actors in the video of showing bias. And another faulted the article for not being something it never intended to be -- a story about the larger issue of police, community, and race in the U.S.
To the degree this story helps people see the baggage we all carry in the form of deeply rooted biases, it is a success. If all the story did was give people another opportunity to stuff the bags fuller, it was a failure.
The article and video pale, however, next to the comments, in terms of what they reveal. Many commenters -- on both sides of the issue -- reinforced the research which shows that people will hold onto a belief despite facts that prove that belief to be incorrect. People -- again on both sides -- came into this discussion biased, and left biased.
Some drew opposite conclusions about the meaning of what they saw. Some inserted their own versions of the story. More than one accused The Times or the actors in the video of showing bias. And another faulted the article for not being something it never intended to be -- a story about the larger issue of police, community, and race in the U.S.
To the degree this story helps people see the baggage we all carry in the form of deeply rooted biases, it is a success. If all the story did was give people another opportunity to stuff the bags fuller, it was a failure.
5
I am shocked by the editorial video about Ferguson on your first page today, Aug. 5, 2015. It contrasts two versions of Grand Jury testimony about the shooting of Michael Brown. It presents selective extracts of the testimony of Michael Brown's companion, Dorian Johnson police Officer Darren Wilson through actors. It does that rather faithfully to the transcripts, but omits the forensic and other testimonial evidence that demonstrated clearly that Johnson lied grossly and Officer Wilson told the truth. The video leaves the viewer with the false impression that there were two equally credible versions of the events. This is pure distortion. The New York Times should be embarrassed.
The best summary of all the evidence was the 86-page report published by the United States Department of Justice. It reported that there was not one single credible witness who supported Dorian Johnson's story–not one! The forensic evidence and every credible witness supported the testimony of Ofc. Darren Wilson. It is a tribute to the integrity of the professionals in the United States Department of Justice that they did not come to the result which Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barrack Obama were clearly expecting. If you read the entire 86-page DOJ report, you will see that my comments above are correct.
The best summary of all the evidence was the 86-page report published by the United States Department of Justice. It reported that there was not one single credible witness who supported Dorian Johnson's story–not one! The forensic evidence and every credible witness supported the testimony of Ofc. Darren Wilson. It is a tribute to the integrity of the professionals in the United States Department of Justice that they did not come to the result which Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barrack Obama were clearly expecting. If you read the entire 86-page DOJ report, you will see that my comments above are correct.
19
The author of this article is doing whatever he can to demonize and dehumanize Officer Darren Wilson. He should be apologized to for having been demonized by certain segments of the society. His killing of Brown was completely justified as Brown attacked him.
There are enough real cases of police brutality. Sandra Bland being the latest victim.
A good cop should not be demonized in an effort to attack homicidal out of control cops.
There are enough real cases of police brutality. Sandra Bland being the latest victim.
A good cop should not be demonized in an effort to attack homicidal out of control cops.
2
The video makes it clear that Michael Brown was not initially trying to take the gun; by pushing it down he was trying to defend himself against it. It also makes clear that Officer Wilson was holding on to Michael's arm -- "pulling him into the car" -- at the very same time as he was trying to open the cruiser door. Wilson entrapped both Brown and himself and then used the entrapment, and Brown's struggles against it, as justification for the use of deadly force. The fact that he has not been held accountable for this needless death is a continuing thorn in the side of the nation. We can only hope Darren Wilson goes the way of O.J. Simpson and never finds work again.
do you also hope the shop owner Brown and Johnson beat up and robbed and whose store was burned down by angry rioters, after the video of Brown and Johnson doing that was posted, is able to find work and recover from his injuries?
1
The video makes it clear that Michael Brown was not initially trying to take the gun; by pushing it down he was trying to defend himself against it.
the doj report, contrary to the unreliable Jackson, states otherwise. Who would you believe. A liar, thief and man who changed his story numerous times (and who should be convicted of perjury but has not) or the DOJ report?
the doj report, contrary to the unreliable Jackson, states otherwise. Who would you believe. A liar, thief and man who changed his story numerous times (and who should be convicted of perjury but has not) or the DOJ report?
1
So much for Dorian Johnson. We was arrested back in May of this year for interfering in a arrest. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/07/dorian-johnson-mich...
7
Very foolish of the NYT to air this video reenactment. It's not news, it's not journalism, it's sensationalist infotainment that belongs on Fox or (sadly these days) Bravo. Both witnesses lie, and the video lies as well since the actors can have no idea how their words were actually spoken in court.
I do think the policeman overreacted. A young, unarmed man should not be dead because he stole a box of cigarillos. On the other hand, were the circumstances not so tragic it would be laughable to assert, as Mr. Wilson did, that he and Michael Brown were discussing "future goals" and "getting on track" on the way home from committing a violent shoplifting. Mr. Brown is on video roughing up the shopkeeper, so these two are hardly misunderstood angels, but the Ferguson community has legitimate gripes against the corrupt city government and police force which conspired to habitually harass and fine its citizens to generate income. Unfortunately in this case, it went much too far.
I do think the policeman overreacted. A young, unarmed man should not be dead because he stole a box of cigarillos. On the other hand, were the circumstances not so tragic it would be laughable to assert, as Mr. Wilson did, that he and Michael Brown were discussing "future goals" and "getting on track" on the way home from committing a violent shoplifting. Mr. Brown is on video roughing up the shopkeeper, so these two are hardly misunderstood angels, but the Ferguson community has legitimate gripes against the corrupt city government and police force which conspired to habitually harass and fine its citizens to generate income. Unfortunately in this case, it went much too far.
9
If the "Black Lives Matter" signs are not just an empty slogan why is there no national as well as local black outrage and mass protests at premeditated—not unexpected or accidental—killings of blacks by blacks?
Take a good look at Jason L. Riley (WSJ editorial
member) article "Race, Politics and the Zimmerman Trial."
He states, "The homicide rate claiming black victims today is seven times that of whites, and the George Zimmermans of the world are not the reason.
"Some 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks"
In 1993, Jesse Jackson told organizers in Chicago: "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."
If he, a black man, was afraid of blacks what can we expect of a white policeman?
C.L. Bryant, the former head of the NAACP said that in the Trayvon Marvin case Sharpton and Rev Jesse Jackson was not welcome.
"He said they were 'acting as though they are buzzards circling the carcass of this young boy."
The problem with African-Americans is they had or have so called leaders and role models who are self-aggrandizing, corrupt, adulterers, immoral, or anti-Semitic; leaders like Bill Cosby, Adam Clayton Powell Jr., Charles Rangel, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhnan and Al Sharpton.
Martin Luther King where are you when we need you now?
Take a good look at Jason L. Riley (WSJ editorial
member) article "Race, Politics and the Zimmerman Trial."
He states, "The homicide rate claiming black victims today is seven times that of whites, and the George Zimmermans of the world are not the reason.
"Some 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks"
In 1993, Jesse Jackson told organizers in Chicago: "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."
If he, a black man, was afraid of blacks what can we expect of a white policeman?
C.L. Bryant, the former head of the NAACP said that in the Trayvon Marvin case Sharpton and Rev Jesse Jackson was not welcome.
"He said they were 'acting as though they are buzzards circling the carcass of this young boy."
The problem with African-Americans is they had or have so called leaders and role models who are self-aggrandizing, corrupt, adulterers, immoral, or anti-Semitic; leaders like Bill Cosby, Adam Clayton Powell Jr., Charles Rangel, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhnan and Al Sharpton.
Martin Luther King where are you when we need you now?
9
mentioning black on black crime is taboo.
1
What strikes me most in hearing this account is the initial encounter of the officer with the men. In Mr. Johnson's account, Officer Wilson addresses the men in expletives as if to assert not just an official and legal authority, but layer of additional license--to taunt, to bully, as if to flaunt the concept that these men must "do as they are told"--no matter how they are told. It seems clear that the statement "Why don't you get on the sidewalk" is not what the Officer said, and that his repeated statements of fearing for his life as a result of punches is rehearsed to support self-defense. Regardless--the manner of the initial engagement seems to release the the germ of racism behind the entire encounter--a remnant of the master-slave relationship that white men may--consciously or unconsciously rely on and black men naturally resent and resist, and challenge in whatever way is natural. When the men respond in kind with indignation and expletives (which is natural), instead of recognizing this natural human response, Officer Wilson feels determines this challenge to him is unacceptable and is enraged.
The lack of understanding of the power dynamic and the operation of anger on the part of police is at the root of tragedy and loss and devastation for too many. Where's the real education and training for people who carry deadly force and sometimes take more than their intended license to use it?
The lack of understanding of the power dynamic and the operation of anger on the part of police is at the root of tragedy and loss and devastation for too many. Where's the real education and training for people who carry deadly force and sometimes take more than their intended license to use it?
Why is the Times still keeping this alive, as if there were actually two points of view -- still a viable debate? Dorrian Johnson was lying through his teeth. Everybody who considered his testimony -- the grand jury and the feds -- concluded that he was lying and the DNA and ballistic evidence conclusively prove it. The Michael Brown case is not a close case. Michael Brown, except in the minds of determined ideologues, is not a poster boy for police brutality, truth and justice, or anything else -- except for the proposition that if you're going to get high, steal from a store (on camera), walk down the middle of a street in broad daylight while holding the evidence of your theft in your hand, and then punch the cop who stops you in the face while grabbing for his gun, things are going to go south fast. There are other cases that are close cases -- the 12-year-old boy in the park with the authentic looking hand gun, for example, who was shot, it seems, the instant the officer emerged from his cruiser. Was this boy given a meaningful opportunity to comply before being gunned down? And there are outrageous cases that beyond question demonstrate police misconduct -- the guy who jumped out of his care after a traffic stop, for example, and was gunned down while running away. But Michael Brown? Rest in peace. OK? The jury is in. Enough is enough.
14
Two very different relating of the events by these two interested parties. Wilson is facing indict for homicide and if Michael Brown was committing a felony that led to his death, Johnson could face indictment for felony murder. Both had incentives to distort the truth to serve their personal interests. Two different ways of relating the incident as each perceived the events. When the confrontation began at the automobile Johnson seems to have been behind Brown and yet he thinks that he saw all the grappling and movements as they unfolded. Brown was far taller and bigger than Johnson and he was struggling with the officer through the car door making observing the events from Johnson's very limited. A very good example of how far apart was the instant before the final fusillade. The officer sees Brown is about to attack with arms down and hands in fists, he demands that he drop to the ground to show compliance. Johnson sees Brown stopped with hands in the air stating that he was no threat. Brown was not attempting to drop to the ground as demanded, that much seems to be agreed. But Brown could not both have his hands in the air and have them down in fists. Brown would not be standing and surrendering and beginning to charge at Wilson. All in all, the two witnesses' testimony had little agreement.
2
What is the point of that stupid, inane music? It made it almost impossible for me to finish watching this very biased video.
14
Not sure I would describe it as stupid or inane...but certainly inappropriate and unnecessary.
It may seem even-handed to lay the testimony of the accuser against the accused. But Mr. Johnson's testimony was contradicted by physical and forensic evidence, while Officer Wilson's account was supported by that evidence. Hence the Justice Department's decision that Wilson was credible and Johnson was not.
14
Thank you!!
1
This "opinion piece" is beyond ... despicable.
There have been thousands and thousands of deaths, since Michael Brown's death. And this "Hands Up, Don't shoot" meme totally discredited.
But as Hillary Clinton said, after the four Benghazi deaths," At this point, what Difference does it Make!"
And this false re-creation here ...
As Hillary said; What difference does it make?
There have been thousands and thousands of deaths, since Michael Brown's death. And this "Hands Up, Don't shoot" meme totally discredited.
But as Hillary Clinton said, after the four Benghazi deaths," At this point, what Difference does it Make!"
And this false re-creation here ...
As Hillary said; What difference does it make?
6
There is no question that there are many cases of disproportionate use of police force that should be addressed. HOWEVER, the Fergusson case is not one of them and the insistence by the the NYT and others to use it as a poster case of bad/racist policing only serve to discredit the cause for needed police reform.
15
This incident has been exhaustively investigated by everyone and every agency concerned. Michael Brown, a 300 pound unarmed teenager, robbed a store, confronted and assaulted a police officer and was shot. Why would the NYT show a film which includes a 'witness' perjuring himself throughout; this incident is over and finished. Two lives were ruined , Michael Brown's and Darren Wilson's. Enough already.
20
This is not a reenactment of testimony in a neutral way. There is use of music with variations in dynamics that are not consistent throughout the testimony. And there are constant reaction shots with varied expressions on the prosecutor's face. One witness has the last word, using his testimony to give his opinion, an opinion which does not bear on the grand jury's decision.
The actor who portrays Officer Wilson has been widely seen portraying police in both the cinema and on cable television. Other of the actors may be known to viewers. This use of actors, the music, and the reaction shots have made Mr. Weiner's production entertainment.
As other commenters suggest and imply, Times readers wishing to reach an informed opinion with have to do the work of reading transcripts and reports. That work is not entertaining.
The actor who portrays Officer Wilson has been widely seen portraying police in both the cinema and on cable television. Other of the actors may be known to viewers. This use of actors, the music, and the reaction shots have made Mr. Weiner's production entertainment.
As other commenters suggest and imply, Times readers wishing to reach an informed opinion with have to do the work of reading transcripts and reports. That work is not entertaining.
11
Dorian Johnson's a proven liar and repeat criminal. Lying on behalf of his criminal friend Mike Brown that brutally attacked a police officer.
100+ businesses looted or burned. Ferguson is a disgrace. A non story that blew up for all the wrong reasons. And an affront to honest, decent policemen and blacks who actually have been victimized.
100+ businesses looted or burned. Ferguson is a disgrace. A non story that blew up for all the wrong reasons. And an affront to honest, decent policemen and blacks who actually have been victimized.
20
You do know that this honest, decent policeman was a member of a racist police department? An active participant?
I am tired of reading about Michael Brown's being the poster child for victims of police aggression. He committed a crime of robbery and ruffing up an older man in the process. He must have felt so big and brave taking on an elderly opponent. Then instead of slinking away, he brazenly walked down the middle of a street. Perhaps the policeman didn't say "pretty please" when he told him to use the sidewalk. Instead of just moving on, Michael Brown chose to enter into a conflict with the policeman. There is DNA to prove that. Most of the witnesses saw what they wanted; he was kneeling in the street with his hands up. There were others who say he wasn't. Then we had the choruses of demonstrators repeating this supposed action.
Choose a real victim of police aggression. I hear a lot less about the man who was shot in NYC in the stairwell of his building while he was minding his own business. Michael Brown was not innocent. He would have been arrested anyway because his crime was videotaped, but he could have walked away from Officer Wilson.
Choose a real victim of police aggression. I hear a lot less about the man who was shot in NYC in the stairwell of his building while he was minding his own business. Michael Brown was not innocent. He would have been arrested anyway because his crime was videotaped, but he could have walked away from Officer Wilson.
20
The phrase "unarmed black teenager" is incomplete in the Michael Brown story. How about "unarmed black teenager who committed a strongarm robbery and then grabbed a police officer's gun"?
18
How is it possible the author of this piece dares call this an unbiased account. Merely opening with the "unarmed black teenager" refrain told me where this was going. Brown was a 6'4" 250 lb adult. He had just stolen goods from a local store and I'd wager that wasn't the first time he'd done that. Too bad the author hasn't taken an unbiased look at what other attributes Brown had.
Then we are treated to his friend's testimony. Testimony that more thorough reporting examined in depth along with the accounts of other eye witnesses. And the discrepancies between his testimony and others led both the local authorities as well as the U.S. Attorney General to conclude officer Wilson did not break the law.
This is another attempt to white wash what really happened. Brown attacked a police officer. Maybe he should have simply done what he was told to do and stop walking down the middle of the street and he'd still be around.
Then we are treated to his friend's testimony. Testimony that more thorough reporting examined in depth along with the accounts of other eye witnesses. And the discrepancies between his testimony and others led both the local authorities as well as the U.S. Attorney General to conclude officer Wilson did not break the law.
This is another attempt to white wash what really happened. Brown attacked a police officer. Maybe he should have simply done what he was told to do and stop walking down the middle of the street and he'd still be around.
16
The only question left in this matter is why Dorian Johnson isn't in jail? His perjured testimony led to millions of dollars of destruction and could have cost even more people their lives. He made fools of many sincere (and insincere) activists. He made a mockery of the civil rights movement, by tying them to his false narrative. We must speak truth to power - "Hands up, don't shoot" was a lie and Johnson was the person that told it.
16
There should be a Sundance award for the drama music, the actor really nailed the lying Johnson character, very convincing.
3
"in which unarmed people of color were killed by police officers with appalling frequency"
I guess from a "progressive" perspective one if one can repeat a lie over and over it becomes truth? A little clue guys, you can claim 1+1=4 all day long but that will not ever make it true.
I guess from a "progressive" perspective one if one can repeat a lie over and over it becomes truth? A little clue guys, you can claim 1+1=4 all day long but that will not ever make it true.
13
This is not "Verbatim" and its irresponsible to say it is. While they use actual transcripts, the carefully skip, leave out, and edit this in a way to avoid the lies told by both parties. Johnson doesn't mention once how the door bounced off of him shut. He doesn't talk once about saying he had money, to not having pockets to carry money, to hiding money in his shoe. He only talks about how angry Wilson was, but not how nice he was! Johnson contradicted himself several times that are edited out.
10
By pretending that there are only two witnesses, and they contradict each other, you encourage the mythical belief that the events of the day are a matter of opinion or interpretation, that nobody really knows what happened.
The problem with this is that there are multiple witnesses that contradict Johnson's account. Along with all of the forensic evidence. And Johnson is a criminal.
In other words, this "Verbatim" documentary is just another way to skew the evidence to say what you want it to, instead of report what actually happened.
Nice try, though.
The problem with this is that there are multiple witnesses that contradict Johnson's account. Along with all of the forensic evidence. And Johnson is a criminal.
In other words, this "Verbatim" documentary is just another way to skew the evidence to say what you want it to, instead of report what actually happened.
Nice try, though.
12
Come on. Enough with the Michael Brown was a good boy and an angel. The facts just don't lead us to that conclusion. The world is full of bad people and yes, police make mistakes. We all do. But as the nation's leading newspaper I expect more from the The NY Times. Please stick to the facts. Please!
14
I invested the time to read the Grand Jury testimony as well as the DOJ report. I await the NYTimes article/video that includes significant information glossed over by the NYTimes that led to the impression that Michael Brown was a regular teen sowing a few wild oats. He was not. Let's start with his blood TCH level of 12 nanograms ... more than 2X the level the can result in prosecution in Washington state due to impaired driving. 5 nanograms is the equivalent of 0.08% blood alcohol. Should we conclude Michael Brown's judgement was impaired, although Johnson claimed they hadn't been smoking? There's more. Much more.
10
I wish the media would stop playing into this overplayed narrative. You're making things worse. The law is often very specific and narrow, and the fact that both the Grand Jury and the DOJ concluded there was no prosecutable offense to try Wilson should be enough. It tells us that the evidence does not support Johnson's account. End of story. Wilson's life matters too, for goodness' sake. I am dismayed at the people calling for him to be ruined at best and thrown in jail or executed for murder. This story has gotten way too one-sided.
10
If you wish to have an informed opinion of what transpired you should really spend an hour reading the DOJ's detailed reports on why they would not be pursuing charges against Officer Wilson.
In short, half a dozen reliable witnesses and all of the forensics bolstered Wilson's account of events. The witnesses who contradicted his account were all over the map with what happened and frequently told accounts that would not be physically possible considering the location of DNA, blood, wounds and shell casings. Wilson standing over Brown's body firing, shooting into his head execution style, shooting in the back, etc. etc., was simply all baloney.
You should also read all of Dorian Johnson's testimony, but for different reasons. You can tell he's trying to avoid giving testimony that would put his friend in a poor light, but he's a very likable person and you can really commiserate with his personal struggle (I particularly liked how he said he would go out of his way to make clear to visitors to his house that his girlfriend was not just some piece of tail. He's a fellow you want to win.)
In short, half a dozen reliable witnesses and all of the forensics bolstered Wilson's account of events. The witnesses who contradicted his account were all over the map with what happened and frequently told accounts that would not be physically possible considering the location of DNA, blood, wounds and shell casings. Wilson standing over Brown's body firing, shooting into his head execution style, shooting in the back, etc. etc., was simply all baloney.
You should also read all of Dorian Johnson's testimony, but for different reasons. You can tell he's trying to avoid giving testimony that would put his friend in a poor light, but he's a very likable person and you can really commiserate with his personal struggle (I particularly liked how he said he would go out of his way to make clear to visitors to his house that his girlfriend was not just some piece of tail. He's a fellow you want to win.)
29
A man whose lies drew the country into an abyss of demagoguery and violence - and who has still not taken responsibility for those lies - is not someone whom I would cheer for.
5
The DOJ report has no bearing on this grand jury, nor was it presented to DA handed picked , and DA made sure , what he wanted them to do, There was no rebuttal for some close to 100 witnesses that the DA paraded. This reverse of that grand Jury could indite a ham sandwich.
3
There doesn't appear to be anything in this limited summary of testimony that would lead to indicting officer Brown. It doesn't show that he is innocent, only not enough to suggest he's guilty.
However, the testimony does indicate that officer Brown mishandled the incident from the outset by stopping so close to Brown and Johnson that he could not step out of his car without hitting one or both of them with the car door. He provided himself with no way to maneuver and, more importantly, protect himself other than reaching for a weapon. So, in a sense, the outcome of the encounter was nevertheless a creation of his, as well as Michael Brown's, making.
However, the testimony does indicate that officer Brown mishandled the incident from the outset by stopping so close to Brown and Johnson that he could not step out of his car without hitting one or both of them with the car door. He provided himself with no way to maneuver and, more importantly, protect himself other than reaching for a weapon. So, in a sense, the outcome of the encounter was nevertheless a creation of his, as well as Michael Brown's, making.
5
That's grasping at some serious straws. No one, not even police officers, are even partially culpable in the death of an attacker just because they failed to anticipate the attack. Mr. Brown took his chances trying to get Officer Wilson's weapon and we now know the result.
3
So let me get this straight. He didn't position his car correctly. So this makes him a murderous bigot? So this justifies his continued vilification in the press, the riots, the looting, the death threats to his wife and unborn child, the loss of employment and of career for both him and his wife, and virtual imprisonment in their own house?
No wonder cops aren't going into Black neighborhoods anymore. I wouldn't either.
No wonder cops aren't going into Black neighborhoods anymore. I wouldn't either.
4
I don't remember an Officer Brown in this whole fiasco.
Ferguson is a good example of, if a lie is told enough times it becomes truth. The false narrative of hands up, don't shoot has become fact.
42
This was the incident that set off the entire movement. Think about that.
9
Precisely but in this case it is without a doubt, the shot and injured boy could only raise the arm which did not have a bullet hole in it. Nor was in any condition to attack the cop with a gun in his hand. Plus within a minute the cop emptied his gun and total of six shots found their mark, and two into the head. Then the cops let the body lie in the street for over five hours. While was treated at the hospital with superficial wounds , given some medication and released . Not to reappear some couple later with no fiscal injuries.
1
The officer and Mr. Johnson are both heavily invested in their version, which is natural. But there are many witnesses to at least the latter part of the incident. I have read some of their testimony - those that I read were living in the nearby apartments, some in their apartment, some driving from or to their apartment. Their testimony is also in conflict; thus notably, some contradict Mr. Johnson and support the officer's version. This is not to justify the officer's conduct - perhaps he should have retreated at some point, perhaps he should have never left his car . . . but Mr. Weinger's reenactment video seems to misrepresent the grand jury's difficulty by implying that their decision was based on deciding whether Officer Wilson or Mr. Johnson accurately described what happened in every detail. Eye witness testimony, even by unbiased witnesses, is often inaccurate. Thus the conflict in the testimony of the other witnesses is not surprising. The grand jury had to weigh the testimony of all the witnesses, not just these two, to decide what probably actually occurred and whether the testimony and any other evidence was sufficiently strong enough to indict. This video fails to put the viewer in this position, as Mr. Weiner intended. In my opinion, it is of negative value and should not have been published by the NYTimes.
24
This video is very moving emotionally. Thank you for making it.
5
But if it was moving physically, it'd be superior.
Everybody should take a look at the comment section on the Ferguson matter in the news section. The Fox viewers got lost and ended up here. First, in regard to the "false" narrative about police officers shooting black men, since Ferguson the fellow in South Carolina got shot in the back, and the fellow in Cincinnati got shot in the head, among others. But, hey, let's not distract ourselves with the facts. Second, on the grand jury, the prosecutor in Missouri actually provided the wrong statute to the grand jury and got reported to his state ethics board over that little maneuver. Finally, Mr Wilson, apparently some Times readers have not read his recent interview in the New Yorker, where he muses on his life and times. It's chilling. I really appreciate when people from abroad write in without the American filter, as the fellow from Thailand does below, when he states that police need to kill to preserve their prestige and authority. Gets right to the point doesn't it? If Wilson thought he had a felony stop, why not call for backup? Because he was incompetent, and he was ticked at the kid who mouthed off to him. SAndra Bland, anyone?
10
One positive outcome of the Ferguson case is that the news media is closing tracking police homicides. As a result, we now know that blacks make up a smaller percent of police homicide victims than widely believed. The New York Times reported August 2 that “So far, 674 people have been killed by officers this year in the United States, including 176 black people.” The Times cited as its source a website titled “The Counted” that is maintained by The Guardian. As of this afternoon, the tally has risen to 683, including 176 black people. This means that 25.8 percent of police homicide victims are black while 74.3 percent are not black. African Americans make up about 13 percent of the population and 25.8 percent of police homicide victims, so black people do make up a disproportionate number of police homicide victims, but this racial disparity is much smaller than the racial disparity in crime rates. The most recent FBI Uniform Crime Report (Data Table 43: Arrests) shows blacks made up 38.7 percent of those arrested for violent crimes, including 52.3 percent of those arrested for murder or manslaughter and 56.4 percent of those arrested for robbery. Table 43 (Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed) shows that blacks killed nearly 50 percent of police officers murdered from 2004 to 2013. An expert recently quoted in the New York Times said, blacks “are five times as likely to feloniously kill a cop.
4
According to FBI statistics, black-on-black homicides in 2013 were approximately 3,345, exponentially larger than police-on-black homicides or general white-on-black homicides.
Additionally, according to FBI stats, African-American males are responsible for approximately 50% of homicides in America in 2013, while Africa-Americans in general comprise only 13% of the population. So, assuming a 50/50 gender split in African-Americans, a little math will inform you that 6.5% of the population of America is committing 50% of the homicides. And that 6.5% are black males.
Is it an untenable leap of logic to assume that this same 6.5% with a demonstrated propensity for violence are likely to engage the police with the same deadly attitude they employ in the rest of their lives?
Get honest, our problem is not the polcie. At least not our biggest problem. Our biggest problem is young black males with guns involved in the drug trade. That's what drives the black-on-black homicide stats. The chief of police in Baltimore estimated that 90% of the fatalities in his city were drug business related.
So, if "Black Lives Matter" shouldn't we be paying a lot more attention to the overwhelming cause of black homicides, namely black-on-black killings related to the drug business? Where's all the outrage over the primary cause of black homicide?
Additionally, according to FBI stats, African-American males are responsible for approximately 50% of homicides in America in 2013, while Africa-Americans in general comprise only 13% of the population. So, assuming a 50/50 gender split in African-Americans, a little math will inform you that 6.5% of the population of America is committing 50% of the homicides. And that 6.5% are black males.
Is it an untenable leap of logic to assume that this same 6.5% with a demonstrated propensity for violence are likely to engage the police with the same deadly attitude they employ in the rest of their lives?
Get honest, our problem is not the polcie. At least not our biggest problem. Our biggest problem is young black males with guns involved in the drug trade. That's what drives the black-on-black homicide stats. The chief of police in Baltimore estimated that 90% of the fatalities in his city were drug business related.
So, if "Black Lives Matter" shouldn't we be paying a lot more attention to the overwhelming cause of black homicides, namely black-on-black killings related to the drug business? Where's all the outrage over the primary cause of black homicide?
1
I read the entire article on Officer Wilson at the New Yorker. I was really surprised how he and his wife have handled what must be an extremely difficult time for them and made a good effort to move past this and care for their kids, which seem to be the center of their lives. I did not find it chilling at all. I found it reassuring. You take one case at a time and review each separately. You do not lump them together and say that because someone else in another state had a more questionable case or was arrested for murder that this makes Officer Wilson guilty. A false movement grew out of this and made a mockery of the original civil rights movement. What you didn't point out is that the DOJ did not find evidence to charge Officer Wilson. The forensic evidence and evidence of reliable witnesses do not bear out the Johnson individual's testimony. Had the media covered this fairly, it would have not been a national incident. It has made me realize that people have an agenda and see things their way and facts are obscured or manipulated. That makes me want to adopt a wait and see attitude about other police shootings and other incidents. I am not a Fox News person. I am a liberal who believed strongly in the civil rights movement but it seems to have taken a wrong turn.
This op-doc is distracting and irrelevant. It tries to answer the ultimate question: the reason for the shooting. That was NOT the question for the grand jury. The only question for the grand jury is whether there is enough evidence to proceed. The grand jury is not a full trial, for which full fact-finding and understanding are needed. The grand jury answers a simpler question with a much lower standard of proof. Indeed, the famous line is that a prosecutor can get an indictment on a ham sandwich. The fact that this prosecutor could not even get an indictment suggests that he didn't try very hard, indeed he likely threw the game.
5
The DOJ, under Holder, could not find a reason to indict. Do you think he wasn't trying?
8
This video reinforces the salient fact that everyone overlooks. The first rule of the street is to control the situation. Never put yourself in a compromising position. I learned that in high school. Any cop out of any police academy will tell you that.
Officer Wilson put himself in a very compromised position when he confronted Mr. Brown less than two feet away. He didn't give himself the space he needed to take command. He didn't even have enough room to open his car door. He said he suspected that Mr. Brown had just committed a theft. This is an admission that he realized he could have a potential confrontation at hand. In that case , he should have exited his vehicle farther down the road where he could better control matters. He did not.
All of this talk about Mr. Brown not obeying direct orders happens all the time on the street. It's a tough place. Especially when the first words from the officer are get the f off of the street. In street culture, that is a direct invitation to start a fight and it doesn't matter how many badges are displayed.
The situation would never has escalated if good police procedure was followed, not a small town cops attempt at being a tough guy.
Michael Brown was wrong with everything he did. Suspects often don't cooperate. Good police work compensates for that. Simply exiting his vehicle 10 feet down the road and without a hostile verbal encounter most likely would have resulted in no injuries or death.
Officer Wilson put himself in a very compromised position when he confronted Mr. Brown less than two feet away. He didn't give himself the space he needed to take command. He didn't even have enough room to open his car door. He said he suspected that Mr. Brown had just committed a theft. This is an admission that he realized he could have a potential confrontation at hand. In that case , he should have exited his vehicle farther down the road where he could better control matters. He did not.
All of this talk about Mr. Brown not obeying direct orders happens all the time on the street. It's a tough place. Especially when the first words from the officer are get the f off of the street. In street culture, that is a direct invitation to start a fight and it doesn't matter how many badges are displayed.
The situation would never has escalated if good police procedure was followed, not a small town cops attempt at being a tough guy.
Michael Brown was wrong with everything he did. Suspects often don't cooperate. Good police work compensates for that. Simply exiting his vehicle 10 feet down the road and without a hostile verbal encounter most likely would have resulted in no injuries or death.
41
If we are free to extrapolate from these incidents as so many have done, we could also say that no one listens to police instructions anymore. That is a very dangerous situation for both cops and citizens.
NYC Police Commissioner Bratton wants to make resisting arrest a felony. It's obviously a serious and dangerous problem.
NYC Police Commissioner Bratton wants to make resisting arrest a felony. It's obviously a serious and dangerous problem.
15
"NYC Police Commissioner Bratton wants to make resisting arrest a felony. It's obviously a serious and dangerous problem."
Are you saying that simply the fact that the police commissioner wants to give the police more power over the lives of the citizens that they supposedly "protect" and "serve," in and of itself, justifies giving the police that power?
Are you saying that simply the fact that the police commissioner wants to give the police more power over the lives of the citizens that they supposedly "protect" and "serve," in and of itself, justifies giving the police that power?
2
Regardless of any of the specifics, if you disobey a police officer's direct order, insult a police officer, assault a police officer, and resist arrest, you should expect lethal force unless you immediately and unambiguously surrender.
2
It was a novel approach to lay side-by-side the critical testimony of the two witnesses closest to the shooting of Michael Brown. It was entertaining, but it wasn't a re-enactment as much as it was a point of view, a perspective on the facts. The evidentiary facts leading the grand jury not to indict Darren Wilson, which information had been reported many months ago, more closely supported the testimony of Wilson than it did that of Dorian Johnson. Of course, there were other witnesses as well whose testimony supported Wilson's testimony, and all of it taken together led the jury to its now famous decision. What I learned today from watching the video was this: Dorian Johnson had been shot before and his testimony (which is supposed to be verbatim) alludes to him having signs of PTSD, which could have prevented him from seeing the incident clearly. The other item that struck me, which perhaps I had forgotten when the jury's decision was first reported, was that Wilson testified that from the time he came upon Brown and Johnson to the time Brown succumbed to the fatal bullet, about a minute had passed. A minute in real time.
In this reader's opinion, few people are going to change their general perspective on how police and minorities, particularly black males, interact in crime-ridden areas throughout the US, no matter how creatively you present evidence. We need change on BOTH sides of the issue, and I am hopeful that we will see this in coming months.
In this reader's opinion, few people are going to change their general perspective on how police and minorities, particularly black males, interact in crime-ridden areas throughout the US, no matter how creatively you present evidence. We need change on BOTH sides of the issue, and I am hopeful that we will see this in coming months.
8
Brown may have been unarmed, but he was seconds away from becoming armed when he made a move for Officer Wilson's gun. Brown was high on drugs, and minutes earlier had assaulted a storekeeper. He was not an innocent citizen out for an afternoon stroll.
The problems in Ferguson are much bigger than Brown and Wilson. In this one encounter, however, Wilson's side of the story is more compelling.
The problems in Ferguson are much bigger than Brown and Wilson. In this one encounter, however, Wilson's side of the story is more compelling.
30
This is awful! Beneath the NYT. Why news as entertainment? Let us read the transcripts. Please don't make this a regular feature. It's like watching a cop show on TV.
29
It's worse than a cop show that at least tries to show nuance and drama. Pure propaganda is all this is.
When will there be justice for Darren Wilson? He was completely exonerated by a state grand jury and federal investigation. Due to the lies told about him, including the "hands up don't shoot" lie, he lost his career, received numerous death threats and has been forced to live in near isolation. All this for doing his job and protecting himself from a criminal who wanted to do him harm. Shame!
41
And to think.. ALL of this could have been avoided if Michael Brown hadn't decided to steal cigars from a convenience store.
24
Wrong. The original stop and start of the incident was for jaywalking.
Actually, he didn't steal (as in "lifting" an item in a store, and trying to exit quietly with no interaction with clerks), he robbed (as in threatened to hit the clerk to get away with his loot).
Dorian Johnson's testimony is absolutely refuted by the physical evidence. His version of events is simply not possible. To juxtapose his testimony with Mr. Wilson's lends undeserving credence to his lies and serves no useful purpose.
33
Judging from from comments here and the other Times story re Ferguson, most readers are pretty sick of the Times perpetuating the the poor unarmed black youth hoax instead of the young black man attacking an officer fact.
45
Maybe (*gasp*) neither one is a hoax?
"most readers"
Most *white* readers, you mean.
Most *white* readers, you mean.
The most underreported aspect of the death of Michael Brown is the aftermath of the aftermath of the release of the video showing him robbing and menacing the store owner. How much did it change the perception of those who watched it and how great was the racial disparity in those perceptions?
How did those who portrayed him as a college-bound, totally innocent, gentle giant deal with the video?
How did those who portrayed him as a college-bound, totally innocent, gentle giant deal with the video?
19
They mostly ignored it, because it didn't fit the narrative of the innocent black youth being bullied by a racist cop. Some even contended the video was only released to smear the deceased's reputation, which is quite rich since it in fact better informed about his character (albeit in a negative way), and helped confirm Wilson's story, both inconvenient news for those trying to ignite a racial upheaval.
People should read the DOJ report. This is part of it.
9. Brown’s Toxicology
A toxicologist with the St. Louis University (SLU) Toxicology Laboratory and the Chief
of the Division of Forensic Toxicology at AFMES each conducted blood and urine screens on
samples collected from Brown’s body. Brown tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids, the hallucinogenic substances associated with marijuana use. The SLU Toxicology Laboratory found 12 nanograms per milliliter of Delta-9-THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, where AFMES found 11 nanograms per milliliter of Delta-9-THC in Brown’s blood.
According to both laboratories, these levels of Delta-9-THC are consistent with Brown
having ingested THC within a few hours before his death. This concentration of THC would
have rendered Brown “impaired”…………... at the time of his death.
Brown was high on drugs when he assaulted the police officer in the vehicle and charged the police officer when he got shot. The Department of Justice, would have loved to file charges against Wilson. The Justice Department stated clearly that Michael Brown was not shot in the back, nor shot while his hands were up. That lie caused the riots.
9. Brown’s Toxicology
A toxicologist with the St. Louis University (SLU) Toxicology Laboratory and the Chief
of the Division of Forensic Toxicology at AFMES each conducted blood and urine screens on
samples collected from Brown’s body. Brown tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids, the hallucinogenic substances associated with marijuana use. The SLU Toxicology Laboratory found 12 nanograms per milliliter of Delta-9-THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, where AFMES found 11 nanograms per milliliter of Delta-9-THC in Brown’s blood.
According to both laboratories, these levels of Delta-9-THC are consistent with Brown
having ingested THC within a few hours before his death. This concentration of THC would
have rendered Brown “impaired”…………... at the time of his death.
Brown was high on drugs when he assaulted the police officer in the vehicle and charged the police officer when he got shot. The Department of Justice, would have loved to file charges against Wilson. The Justice Department stated clearly that Michael Brown was not shot in the back, nor shot while his hands were up. That lie caused the riots.
27
"Brown was high on _drugs_"
Not so. He was high on *one* drug: THC. And anyone who has been high on THC or has merely been in the presence of someone high on THC knows that such a person is stupid and silly, like a happy drunk, and is *incapable* of just getting angry, let alone of posing a physical threat to an armed, adult male of whatever race, creed, color, or previous condition of servitude. That Brown was high has nothing to do with what happened. Except to those who are fully invested in the belief that THC, in the face of any - that is to say, *all* - evidence to the contrary, poses a threat to society deserving of life in prison, when its only threat is to the *individual* found by the police to be in possession of it.
Not so. He was high on *one* drug: THC. And anyone who has been high on THC or has merely been in the presence of someone high on THC knows that such a person is stupid and silly, like a happy drunk, and is *incapable* of just getting angry, let alone of posing a physical threat to an armed, adult male of whatever race, creed, color, or previous condition of servitude. That Brown was high has nothing to do with what happened. Except to those who are fully invested in the belief that THC, in the face of any - that is to say, *all* - evidence to the contrary, poses a threat to society deserving of life in prison, when its only threat is to the *individual* found by the police to be in possession of it.
There was one wound to the back of Brown's arm.
How does this happen?
Either the shot came from behind or his hands were up.
How does this happen?
Either the shot came from behind or his hands were up.
1
having ingested thc does not subject one to capital punishment.
I had seen the word "balanced" thrown around in this article, yet the other terms used clearly show this writer's bias. I.E. " a nightmarish year of violence, in which unarmed people of color were killed by police officers with appalling frequency". Truthfully, 2015 has been a less violent year than many years prior. I'm not condoning violence, but rather stating that violence and police violence has been steadily decreasing since the large increase in the early-to-mid 90s. This is proven by FBI statistics as well as various other independent groups. One thing that keeps getting left out of these "balanced" articles is how the victim escalated events by 1. first committing a crime, 2. failing to be respectful and obeying the officers commands, and 3. resisting arrest.
There is this completely ridiculous myth that there is a majority of white police officers that have a singular purpose of only being a police officer to target black people. Yet, so many buy into that ridiculous myth. How does buying into these ridiculous racist myths help bridge race relations? Let me put it another way. How do I bridge and repair race relations if I'm going into things with ridiculously head-strong racial prejudices?
There is this completely ridiculous myth that there is a majority of white police officers that have a singular purpose of only being a police officer to target black people. Yet, so many buy into that ridiculous myth. How does buying into these ridiculous racist myths help bridge race relations? Let me put it another way. How do I bridge and repair race relations if I'm going into things with ridiculously head-strong racial prejudices?
28
My second comment: Wilson did not know about Brown's recent crime; his actions were based on their encounter. People have the right to talk back to a police officer. The first amendment guarantees that right to every person. Who gets to judge what level of respect is owed an officer? What was Brown being arrested for? Contempt of cop? Do an internet search of that phrase and you may learn something. I will say that I am very careful when dealing with a cop; they have all the power, and I have none.
Myth?
There are hundreds if not thousands of videos and audios (accessible on youtube), emails, eyewitness accounts and confessions (of retired police officers), that attest to the fact that a significant portion of police have little more than contempt for black people (and other minorities). There are also many studies ( many reported in the NYT) by scholars and social scientists that show that police discretion (to stop or not, to arrest or not, to charge with a higher crime or not) is used very unfavorably towards blacks as compared to whites. Also, the history of the police (in reality a sordid history) in this country begins with slave patrols, and the practice of targeting blacks has been the custom or culture of the police ever since.
There are hundreds if not thousands of videos and audios (accessible on youtube), emails, eyewitness accounts and confessions (of retired police officers), that attest to the fact that a significant portion of police have little more than contempt for black people (and other minorities). There are also many studies ( many reported in the NYT) by scholars and social scientists that show that police discretion (to stop or not, to arrest or not, to charge with a higher crime or not) is used very unfavorably towards blacks as compared to whites. Also, the history of the police (in reality a sordid history) in this country begins with slave patrols, and the practice of targeting blacks has been the custom or culture of the police ever since.
1
there is no requirement or law that demands a citizen to be respectful of a policeman. As for commands, "why don't you get on the side walk?" is not a command, that is a question. The operative word being "Why".
I do not believe that there is a myth floating out there that the "majority of white policemen have a singular purpose of only being a police officer to target black people". I think the truth is this: there is a significant number of white police officers who do target black people in addition to other duties. I think they consider abusing black people a job benefit rather than a singular purpose.
I do not believe that there is a myth floating out there that the "majority of white policemen have a singular purpose of only being a police officer to target black people". I think the truth is this: there is a significant number of white police officers who do target black people in addition to other duties. I think they consider abusing black people a job benefit rather than a singular purpose.
Talking about getting ahead in life and stealing 'rills. That's just a normal day.
That said, this is an amazing piece.
That said, this is an amazing piece.
1
Mt. Johnson's testimony was contradicted by many witnesses (almost all black). The forensic evidence is directly opposite of what Mr. Johnson said. Mr. Johnson participated in the strong arm robbery of an Indian store owner half Mr. Brown's size. He had every reason to cover up his role.
Perhaps Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson were attacking the owner because he was a member of a minority.
Perhaps Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson were attacking the owner because he was a member of a minority.
44
Please look at the store video. From what I can see, Mr. Johnson is trying to minimize or prevent the robbery. Mr. Johnson is clearly seen being handed the cigarillos from Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson is clearly seen placing the cigarillos back on the counter, not wanting to participate.
perhaps you are attacking mr brown and mr johnson beauase they are members of a minority.
You could have fooled me. All I heard was Michael Brown this and Michael Brown that. His face was emblazoned on T-shirts along with Trayvon Martin who had a trial by jury. His "hands up, don't shoot" started a misguided protest movement, rioting and looting. People who lied, people who encouraged rioting were not charged with any crime. Of all the cases people have brought up, only Walter Scott and Freddie Gray seem to have some merit. And in Freddie Gray's case, three were white and three were black officers. So much for a racially charged incident. Yet most blacks, even prominent ones, band together, encouraged by the media, and see racism in almost every incident while police have to operate under a microscope, condemned if they defend themselves, condemned if they are not proactive, and forgotten if they are killed.
I've listened to a number of comments (on TV) by blacks regarding the shooting. The unanimous opinions were that, based on the testimony of Mr. Johnson, Michael was shot in the back, with his hands up (hence the slogan). When questioned about the forensics indicating that was not true, several remarked "I don't know nothing about no "forensics" but I know what happened". And therein lies the problem, We "cherry pick" parts to fit our narrative. Thankfully a grand jury and a Federal investigation took the time to consider all the evidence. It's unfortunate when the media doesn't do the same.
70
"I don't know nothing about no "forensics"? Seriously. Did the 'blacks' you listened to also accompany it with a shuffle and end it with "no massa"? You've resorted to stereotyping to prove your point.
We "cherry pick" parts to fit our narrative.
Read: *They* "cherry-pick" parts to fit *their* narrative. What *we* narrate is the truth.
Read: *They* "cherry-pick" parts to fit *their* narrative. What *we* narrate is the truth.
Those were actual quotes. Several people said "I don't know nothing about............". I don't make this up, I just observe it.
Ferguson should have been the poster child for a new black uprising against police bias. In the case, the deceased had just strong armed and immigrant man less than half his size. There have certainly been other incidents to use to show this bias.
We have made great progress in America since the 60's. A black President, Attorney General, Homeland Security Director etc. Our black First Lady graduated from Princeton having her eduction subsidized in one way or another by the people of America.
The question should be why do all the above people succeed and the great majority of the black American born citizens remain mired in poverty. Forget Ferguson. Focus on black poverty!
We have made great progress in America since the 60's. A black President, Attorney General, Homeland Security Director etc. Our black First Lady graduated from Princeton having her eduction subsidized in one way or another by the people of America.
The question should be why do all the above people succeed and the great majority of the black American born citizens remain mired in poverty. Forget Ferguson. Focus on black poverty!
13
The First Lady's education was subsidized? She had student loans. Where do you folks get your information?
"Focus on black poverty!"
And *definitely* avoid any focus on the *reason* for black poverty!
And *definitely* avoid any focus on the *reason* for black poverty!
She received grants and scholarships only available to African Americans which I have no issue with. All through my time at a small college in the 70's, all the expenses for our African American students including tuition and room and board were covered by various government programs......
I think police in the U.S. have serious problems.
1. They hire just about anyone - sometimes guys who just want to abuse their powers and have serious ego issues.
2. They escalate, not descalate. In this case the police officer actually didn't know about the alleged stealing (this was proven). This essentially was about jaywalking. Yet he has no regrets over how he handled the situation, how someone was killed. To me this shows extreme indifference towards human life.
3. They have police officers protecting communities they don't care about and think poorly of its residents. Not to mention the cultural and racial biases they hold.
I've had extremely negative encounters with cops, they yell and scream for no reason and think you should be bowing before them. A small % of them is actually interested in protecting, the rest just want to hold a gun and have people fear them.
1. They hire just about anyone - sometimes guys who just want to abuse their powers and have serious ego issues.
2. They escalate, not descalate. In this case the police officer actually didn't know about the alleged stealing (this was proven). This essentially was about jaywalking. Yet he has no regrets over how he handled the situation, how someone was killed. To me this shows extreme indifference towards human life.
3. They have police officers protecting communities they don't care about and think poorly of its residents. Not to mention the cultural and racial biases they hold.
I've had extremely negative encounters with cops, they yell and scream for no reason and think you should be bowing before them. A small % of them is actually interested in protecting, the rest just want to hold a gun and have people fear them.
12
It was proven that Wilson did no about the stealing. He was nearby, and the police were all on the same radio frequency. A description had been broadcast and was specific, down to the yellow socks with green marihuana leaves on Brown's feet.
This is easy to prove by reading the transcripts, available on the times website.
This is easy to prove by reading the transcripts, available on the times website.
Dina,
What proof do you have that police hire just about anyone?
Why did Brown attack Officer Wilson as the testimony shows?
How do you know that officers do not care about the communities they protect?
Can you site any legitimate studies that show this?
You can state all the opinions you want just don't make them sound like absolute truth.
What proof do you have that police hire just about anyone?
Why did Brown attack Officer Wilson as the testimony shows?
How do you know that officers do not care about the communities they protect?
Can you site any legitimate studies that show this?
You can state all the opinions you want just don't make them sound like absolute truth.
Didn't you listen to the testimony in the film? Or read the testimony when it was released by the Grand Jury? Wilson was aware that there was a robbery. At the time when he originally told the men to get out of the street, he didn't put two and two together until he saw the cigarillos in Brown's hands. It was not about jaywalking. But, for heaven's sake, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant on your part. The air tapes were also released and it showed ninety seconds went down from the time Wilson got out of service on two pedestrian checks, asking for backup, and Brown ending up shot. I find it ludicrous that people like you believe Dorian Johnson and his lies regardless of the physical and other evidence at the scene. My only real question is why Johnson wasn't charged with felony murder since he was complicit in this entire incident.
Valuable piece that sets a needed context.
1
I see this drama portrayal has little redeeming value. The witness was lying through his teeth. To pretend what he was saying is a point of view is fantasy.
This is not interpreting things from two points of view, both the Grand Jury and the Justice Dept. did the right thing. It is only partisans trying to push their point of view on the American public that keep this nonsense alive.
Note to unarmed punks of all races, you stick your hand into a police cruiser and strike an officer and touch his gun in your aggression, nothing good is going to become of your actions.
This is not interpreting things from two points of view, both the Grand Jury and the Justice Dept. did the right thing. It is only partisans trying to push their point of view on the American public that keep this nonsense alive.
Note to unarmed punks of all races, you stick your hand into a police cruiser and strike an officer and touch his gun in your aggression, nothing good is going to become of your actions.
50
Which witness was lying? The one facing charges?
In school said Police had to choose to die at that moment or to go to court later. And safety first of all the other are come after. Police need to kill to preserve his authority. And the authority of the law.
6
This is a very compelling video. Having read the accompanying article, however, I can't accept that Weiner's intention is fulfilled: that the viewer can "put yourself in the position of that grand jury, seeing and interpreting the testimony as they did." The very juxtaposition of testimony that actually occurred, as Weiner himself states, hundreds of pages apart in the transcript presents a reality that was precisely not what the grand jury experienced.
I don't condemn Weiner for this production. Nor do I here provide my own response to the events in Ferguson, either the events that occurred on that day last August or the events that have occurred since, including the testimony this video attempts to present. My concern is that we as viewers may come away with a skewed view of the grand jury proceedings, just as these or any other grand jurors may come away from the evidence or testimony presented to them with a skewed view of what they actually heard and saw based on how the evidence or testimony was presented to them. Call my concern the legal or narrative analogy to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
I don't condemn Weiner for this production. Nor do I here provide my own response to the events in Ferguson, either the events that occurred on that day last August or the events that have occurred since, including the testimony this video attempts to present. My concern is that we as viewers may come away with a skewed view of the grand jury proceedings, just as these or any other grand jurors may come away from the evidence or testimony presented to them with a skewed view of what they actually heard and saw based on how the evidence or testimony was presented to them. Call my concern the legal or narrative analogy to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
5
Much as been made of the fact that Michael Brown was unarmed. However, unarmed people kill more Americans each year than do people armed with rifles or shotguns. In 2013, unarmed people beat, stomped and kicked 674 Americans to death. People armed with rifles, including assault rifles, or shotguns killed 625 Americans in 2013. And beatings leave thousands of Americans with serious permanent injuries. Many police officers have been killed by unarmed suspects who manage to take the officer’s service revolver.
58
Why arbitrarily choose just rifles and shotguns, other than to cherry pick misleading facts to support your argument?
33,636 individuals were killed by firearms in 2013. Deaths by unarmed are 2% of that.
33,636 individuals were killed by firearms in 2013. Deaths by unarmed are 2% of that.
12
Yes, the "unarmed" is mentioned along with his race, which is like a new "identity" that implies "victim".
The implication that citizens should not get shot unless they are armed is misguided. Punching a police officer in the face *should* carry a risk of getting hurt. Police have guns and are permitted to protect themselves.
What struck me about Michael Brown was his obvious disregard for authority. He swatted that storeowner away like an irritating gnat. After stealing from him. Then he refused to leave the street when told to do so. He was a young man with very serious problems.
It is likely no amount of talking would have gotten him to comply. Had it not been Brown, there would have been an altercation at some point over those stolen items. Probably along the lines of Mr. Garner, minus the heart attack. At least he would have survived that fight.
The implication that citizens should not get shot unless they are armed is misguided. Punching a police officer in the face *should* carry a risk of getting hurt. Police have guns and are permitted to protect themselves.
What struck me about Michael Brown was his obvious disregard for authority. He swatted that storeowner away like an irritating gnat. After stealing from him. Then he refused to leave the street when told to do so. He was a young man with very serious problems.
It is likely no amount of talking would have gotten him to comply. Had it not been Brown, there would have been an altercation at some point over those stolen items. Probably along the lines of Mr. Garner, minus the heart attack. At least he would have survived that fight.
3
Correction: Had it not been Darren Wilson...
…if I'm ever arrested, I hope this author is not on the jury that judges me...utterly bizarre editorial decision to publish this material, with such extreme bias, cloaked in false objectivity…
53
this whole article is nothing but racial apologia. A commision of experts, with great depth and time, have already found that Brown tried to take Wilson's gun. what exactly does that imply for his intentions?
Also, Jackson attacked a store clerk with Brown, not exactly a mark of a reliable "witness". Yet that is what his testimony is painted as.
This article is despicable.
Also, Jackson attacked a store clerk with Brown, not exactly a mark of a reliable "witness". Yet that is what his testimony is painted as.
This article is despicable.
3
I saw this somewhat differently than you did, but I'm genuinely interested to learn what about the video you believe to be biased, and in which direction.
If you're a white cop who kills a black male, you'll likely never see a grand jury, and you know it.
1
You should understand man who violated the orders of the police. He is someone who violates the law. And he must be punished. At that time, the police command is legal. But police brave to die for keep his prestige. Police need to kill to preserve his authority. And the authority of the law. It mean police can not capitulate any criminal. Even though he must die.
8
you should join the Republican Party. you would fit right in.
4
Chuchat Prasertkun, you are wasting your time in Thailand! Come to America and join the police force where your views are shared and enforced.
3
I have only read the comments and have not viewed the video but here is something I have been thinking about for quite a while. The recent incidents (I know, this word is too mild) between white officers and people of color to me seems to be the result of a few things:
1. Lack of training on de-escalation strategies on the part of police
2. Lack of training on recognizing innate bias in police
3. The clash between authoritarian officers and younger people who have been raised to question authority (unlike us older folk who were raised to acquiesce to authority).
4. The distrust many people have towards the police, particularly and understandably people of color.
Why did we ever get away from community policing where officers would actually get to know their community on a personal level and, therefore, would be more understanding and the community would be more trusting of the police. As a white person, I will never be able to understand what it feels like to have people automatically be suspicious of my behavior just due to my skin color. I think officers should always have that in the back of their mind when interacting with a person with a different racial/cultural background from themselves. Police need significantly more training on how to talk with people calmly and not immediately jumping to some kind of confrontation, either verbal or physical. They are supposed to be peacekeepers not stress makers.
1. Lack of training on de-escalation strategies on the part of police
2. Lack of training on recognizing innate bias in police
3. The clash between authoritarian officers and younger people who have been raised to question authority (unlike us older folk who were raised to acquiesce to authority).
4. The distrust many people have towards the police, particularly and understandably people of color.
Why did we ever get away from community policing where officers would actually get to know their community on a personal level and, therefore, would be more understanding and the community would be more trusting of the police. As a white person, I will never be able to understand what it feels like to have people automatically be suspicious of my behavior just due to my skin color. I think officers should always have that in the back of their mind when interacting with a person with a different racial/cultural background from themselves. Police need significantly more training on how to talk with people calmly and not immediately jumping to some kind of confrontation, either verbal or physical. They are supposed to be peacekeepers not stress makers.
20
Did you read the recent article in the times about the guy who uses pseudo-science to train police to shoot first and ask questions later? It surprised me that it didn't get more attention. It should.
According to Dorian Johnson they were "talking about future goals - what we were planning on doing... how did I transform" All this talk after just assaulting a store owner and stealing cigarillos to make blunts out of . I just wonder what those future goals were. What store to knockoff next? Hmmm, to put into perspective, maybe if you weren't up to illegal activity, people wouldn't always be warning you about the po po.
64
Thank you. Did anyone check whether the witness actually had an apartment and paid his rent?
He certainly knew how to play everybody. Just talk about getting your life together and paying rent. Surprised he didn't mention a 9-5 job and having two kids.
He certainly knew how to play everybody. Just talk about getting your life together and paying rent. Surprised he didn't mention a 9-5 job and having two kids.
perhaps the kids were illegitimate and he just wanted to keep it a secret?
These op-ed docs are a problematic experiment. Excellent performances and well shot and edited (though the underscoring nauseated me). My liberal conscience is struggling. Having heard the selected testimony presented this way I no longer think that the officer was out of line in shooting "Big Mike." I found the testimony of Mr. Johnson in the context of the movie such bad screenwriting on the part of his lawyers "talking about dreams for the future" after uncontestedly just robbing a store. The fact that Mike was asking a convicted gun criminal about his dreams in that context is dubious. The fact that Johnson doesn't contest the fact that Big Mike handed off the cigarillos to get more aggressive with the officer definitely hitting him (regardless of how little damage was done to his face) and trying to take his gun. I would have absolutely not indicted the officer. An officer alone against a man that large in an aggressive state? I certainly would have fired. I wish officers were more trained marksmen to avoid fatality and/or could subdue in another way. I am absolutely for civil rights and against the use of excessive force but this is not a good case for the cause. Brown may be a victim of his circumstances but he is not a martyr.
99
The video, as the creator makes clear, only dealt with the court testimony. The tragedy that was Michael Brown goes back years. He was living with his Grandmother and her husband (step-grandad) and his real parents were nowhere to be found in his life. His mother and step-dad returned after the shooting to take part in protests and lawsuits. How many times and in how many places has this story been heard? Michael went to an unaccredited high school. I am guessing they don't get the funds needed to provide even the basics of education. How was this kid supposed to have goals and ambitions? The forensics on this tragedy should include 'how did Ferguson go from being a functional small town near St. Louis to a nightmare of poverty and violence in just 25 years'? Knowing that answer will give great insight into the unfortunate life of Michael Brown.
This reminds me of the classic sitcom clique where to different sides of the same story are told and at the end everyone agrees to disagree. Sadly tho in this version there is a life taken. It does make we wonder, I always thought that police where suppose to see their gun as a last resort. My question when listening to the police officer's side of this incident and when listening to the many other incidence that have gotten media coverage recently is......Where is the taser? Where is the mace? There are the nightstick? Where did this "Shoot first" type of policing come from. If you take the officer's side of the story there where more than enough times for the situation to be deescalated and opportunities for there for be less deadly weapon used on Brown.
6
If you read the full FBI report this issue is discussed. The officers taser was on his left side and since Michael Brown was reaching into the car from that side he couldn't get to it. The officer also thought to use his night stick but ruled it out due to its in effectiveness within the vehicle. Read the full report and decide for yourself.
14
What is the purpose of recreating the testimony of the two main living people involved in this tragedy who have the greatest incentive to lie? There were numerous 3rd party eyewitnesses who- even though their veracity too may be questioned- who provided less-biased testimony than the shooter and the friend of the deceased.
16
The video’s subtitles indicate bias on the parts of its creators. For example, one says “The Justice Department ultimately refrained from bringing civil rights charges against Officer Wilson for killing Michael Brown. The Justice Department actually concluded that there were no "prosecutable violations" and that witness accounts of Brown surrendering with his hands up "are inconsistent with the physical evidence." This, of course, would apply directly to Dorian Johnston’s testimony.
It is difficult to judge the testimony as if we were jurors because we know things that jurors presumably wouldn’t know. For example, we know that Johnson told constantly changing versions of the incident. For example, he told MSNBC in an interview conducted shortly after the shooting that Office Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown in the back. He said after being shot in the back, Johnson stopped, turned with his hands up and said “I don’t have a gun, stop shooting!” He changed his story after the autopsy report revealed that Brown wasn’t shot in the back and he realized his statements conflicted with other witness statements. As far as the struggle at the car is concerned, Johnson’s and Wilson’s account differ in the way that witness accounts of the same event usually differ. However, the forensic evidence supported Wilson account.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/eyewitness-michael-brown-fatal-shooting-missouri
It is difficult to judge the testimony as if we were jurors because we know things that jurors presumably wouldn’t know. For example, we know that Johnson told constantly changing versions of the incident. For example, he told MSNBC in an interview conducted shortly after the shooting that Office Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown in the back. He said after being shot in the back, Johnson stopped, turned with his hands up and said “I don’t have a gun, stop shooting!” He changed his story after the autopsy report revealed that Brown wasn’t shot in the back and he realized his statements conflicted with other witness statements. As far as the struggle at the car is concerned, Johnson’s and Wilson’s account differ in the way that witness accounts of the same event usually differ. However, the forensic evidence supported Wilson account.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/eyewitness-michael-brown-fatal-shooting-missouri
67
Times should quit pushing the false narrative of racist cops are targeting/killing Blacks. There is no basis for it. For Ferguson specifically, the facts of the case are clear -- Officer Wilson was not indicted by Grand Jury, the DOJ did not charge him, and forensic evidence supports his story. The "hands up, don't shoot" story has been debunked. The media coverage and race hustlers led to the burning of Ferguson and riots, and cops being shot.
So why does the Times, in both opinion and supposed objective reporting keep pushing a clearly false narrative?
So why does the Times, in both opinion and supposed objective reporting keep pushing a clearly false narrative?
133
Because it's all about the narrative.
9
Another commenter saw bias in this video also, and also didn't explain what the bias was. I asked that commenter, as I'm asking you (because I sincerely want to know): What is it about this video or the New York Times reporting that you believe is biased?
Ralphie-
Maybe when white cops quit killing unarmed black people, the NYT will quit reporting on such incidents. :-)
Maybe when white cops quit killing unarmed black people, the NYT will quit reporting on such incidents. :-)
2
where is the video where one of the witnesses, the friend of Brown, beating up the store clerk (with Brown) before the incident in question?
Why does the NY Times keep emphasizing the fact that Brown was "unarmed" despite the fact he clearly reached in and tried to grab the gun from the officer? WHat did the NY Times think Brown intended to do with that weapon had he gotten hold of it? A logical person would not assume that Brown would have used it on Wilson, would they?
Why does the NY Times keep emphasizing the fact that Brown was "unarmed" despite the fact he clearly reached in and tried to grab the gun from the officer? WHat did the NY Times think Brown intended to do with that weapon had he gotten hold of it? A logical person would not assume that Brown would have used it on Wilson, would they?
96
He didn't beat up the store clerk; clearly, he just pushed him around. Just to clarify for those who haven't seen the video.
Brown did not "beat up" the store clerk. The clerk tried to detain Brown and he shoved the clerk out of the way. I have noticed that we don't have most of our usual posters here today but instead we are inundated with a tribe singing one song.
2
Clearly Michael Brown was a robber. If he'd been arrested for his crime he would not been sentenced to death by any court. But that is what happened to him. I find the "reaching for my gun" excuse suspect;every cop now says that. Remember the homeless person in LA; the man running away from the cop in N. Charleston. Both were shot to death. There are more examples of this self-serving excuse for killing. It's easy to write Brown off as a hoodlum who got what he desrved, but he deserved his day in court
A new low for the Times.
96
CORRECTION: The above article incorrectly described Michael Brown of Ferguson, MO as having been unarmed when he died while attacking an officer of the law in August 2014. However, the STL PA, a grand jury, and the US DOJ determined in separate investigations that the drugged and enraged 300# 18 year old young man did in fact have fists at the end of each of his arms and was therefore actually well armed.
37
And that he beat and robbed a store owner earlier in the evening. Something the NY Times rarely mentioned in its previous articles on the subject.
1
Dorian Johnson was a really bad choice.
Johnson claimed Brown was never inside the police vehicle. This claim was conclusively disproven by blood and DNA. Further, the exhaustive DOJ report specifically found Johnson not credible.
Playing these two accounts as if they are equally plausible is really misleading.
Johnson claimed Brown was never inside the police vehicle. This claim was conclusively disproven by blood and DNA. Further, the exhaustive DOJ report specifically found Johnson not credible.
Playing these two accounts as if they are equally plausible is really misleading.
119
The Times has been deliberately misleading about Ferguson from the get go and deliberately misleading about cops targeting Blacks.
59
The Times isn't suggesting that the two accounts are equally plausible, but merely that they were different accounts of the same event. It remains for us, as it did for the grand jury, to determine which description is more plausible.
1
"Targeting" implies premeditation and no one, including the Times, has made such a claim. But there is an undeniable increase in cases of police acting with unnecessary aggression against blacks who have committed either no crime or crimes so petty (such as changing lanes without signaling) that police action is virtually unnecessary. That such situations can escalate into fatal shootings or mysteriously fatal injuries should be met with horror, suspicion and demands for better training, supervision and transparency, rather than the defensiveness you display here.
3
It's precisely because "eyewitness" testimony is all over the map like this, that courts rely more and more on scientific evidence. An eyewitness might be lying (especially when they have a whole history of changing their story like Dorian Johnson), but more likely he thinks he's telling the truth although his own memory and perception are faulty. Cameras, as well as scientific evidence, would help much more than this sort of thing, because when you have two witnesses telling divergent stories, people will just believe the one they relate to or sympathize with. If they don't like the police they will believe the other guy and vice versa.
33
The Ferguson protest/riot wasn't about Micheal Brown. Sure his death was a flash point but there were long simmering issues in that are that went back decades. To only look at one incident and try to explain how a riot brewed from that one incident is folly, counter productive and a deflection of the true underlying issues.
It just gives people the chance to dispute and dismiss one incident rather than look at the whole issue and problem stemming from it.
It just gives people the chance to dispute and dismiss one incident rather than look at the whole issue and problem stemming from it.
11
A real problem is the stupidity of the civil rights leaders and liberal media who chose this event and Michael Brown as the poster child of this important issue. If unarmed black youths are shot by racist white police officers every day (as the media would have us believe) couldn't they find a choir boy instead of a thug like Michael Brown?
13
Brett Weiner & "Team",
Thank you for the research, video & way in which you presented this event.
Two thoughts from my perspective:
Everyone might benefit from reading Ta-Nehisi Coates book Between the World & Me, as well as Radley Balko's The Rise of the Warrior Cop.
Public Safety Officers, the Police Chiefs who hire them & the Police Academies who "train" them need to re-write the Policy & Procedure Manual to reflect current methods of psycho-social de-escalation.
Perhaps Michael Brown committed "suicide by cop" and perhaps Darren Wilson reacted like a mammal who felt vulnerable & threatened instead of like an "adult".
Thank you for the research, video & way in which you presented this event.
Two thoughts from my perspective:
Everyone might benefit from reading Ta-Nehisi Coates book Between the World & Me, as well as Radley Balko's The Rise of the Warrior Cop.
Public Safety Officers, the Police Chiefs who hire them & the Police Academies who "train" them need to re-write the Policy & Procedure Manual to reflect current methods of psycho-social de-escalation.
Perhaps Michael Brown committed "suicide by cop" and perhaps Darren Wilson reacted like a mammal who felt vulnerable & threatened instead of like an "adult".
2
Interesting but not very valuable. We know that the prosecutor did not prosecute. On the contrary, he declared his support for Wilson within hours of the shooting. He did not present a case to the Grand Jury.
The value of this reenactment lies, in part, in confirming that Wilson confronted the two blacks aggressively. Why? His sense of entitlement or inexperience?
It also confirms that Wilson pursued Brown. That was unnecessary and should have triggered a full review and a full presentation of information to the Grand Jury. Instead, the Blue Wall closed around Wilson, and the prosecutor behaved despicably.
The value of this reenactment lies, in part, in confirming that Wilson confronted the two blacks aggressively. Why? His sense of entitlement or inexperience?
It also confirms that Wilson pursued Brown. That was unnecessary and should have triggered a full review and a full presentation of information to the Grand Jury. Instead, the Blue Wall closed around Wilson, and the prosecutor behaved despicably.
9
I don't think there's one true statement in your comment.
46
I guess the fact that the DOJ did not find any evidence either to pursue charges? Guess those facts do not fit your agenda or narrative?
23
It also confirms that Wilson pursued Brown.
Brown reached into WIlson's gun and tried to grab his firearm. This is an established fact. The truth thus sound more like Brown pursued Wilson. Your comments, considering this fact, are despicable in and my themselves.
Brown reached into WIlson's gun and tried to grab his firearm. This is an established fact. The truth thus sound more like Brown pursued Wilson. Your comments, considering this fact, are despicable in and my themselves.
3
Cops have discretion to decide when, where and how to enforce the laws. Context and perspective matters. The uniformed armed badged trained law enforcement professional with a license to deprive civilians of their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness should and must be held to the highest moral, ethical, professional and legal standard. The benefit of every reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of the civilian.
Profiling and stalking individuals for minor offenses or actions based upon color and race is unlawful bigotry. Neither walking in the middle of the street nor shop lifting cigarillos are worthy of much police attention. Even if this incident had not ended up in a shooting the question remains that but for the race of the civilian would any of this have happened. Failing to respect the humanity of the people is unacceptable.
Profiling and stalking individuals for minor offenses or actions based upon color and race is unlawful bigotry. Neither walking in the middle of the street nor shop lifting cigarillos are worthy of much police attention. Even if this incident had not ended up in a shooting the question remains that but for the race of the civilian would any of this have happened. Failing to respect the humanity of the people is unacceptable.
8
I would bet my left arm that you profile in your daily life. EVERYONE that walks this earth does. How you conduct your life is based off of experiences, profiles, and stereotypes. That is a simple fact of life.
How can you possibly expect a police officer not to profile? When that officer sees crime every day first hand he is going to build his own profiles and stereotypes based off of that. That is normal as again, everyone does it. So he sees a car full of black guys in a predominately white neighborhood, his spidy senses are going to go off as its out of place. That is NORMAL.
Profiles and Stereotypes are not racism. They are both based on truth to a degree. No not all Asians are smart but enough are to create the stereotype. Not all Indians (feather not dot) can't hold their alcohol, but enough can't to create the stereotype.
The black culture today is to blame for the stereotypes and profiles they live with. Next time you get looked at closely in the store don't blame the clerk or call him a racist, blame the last black guy that looked like you that robbed him and the one before that and the one before that. If he was robbed mostly by white guys he would be watching white guys closely. See how that works? The black community needs to look into the mirror and blame the real issue, itself.
How can you possibly expect a police officer not to profile? When that officer sees crime every day first hand he is going to build his own profiles and stereotypes based off of that. That is normal as again, everyone does it. So he sees a car full of black guys in a predominately white neighborhood, his spidy senses are going to go off as its out of place. That is NORMAL.
Profiles and Stereotypes are not racism. They are both based on truth to a degree. No not all Asians are smart but enough are to create the stereotype. Not all Indians (feather not dot) can't hold their alcohol, but enough can't to create the stereotype.
The black culture today is to blame for the stereotypes and profiles they live with. Next time you get looked at closely in the store don't blame the clerk or call him a racist, blame the last black guy that looked like you that robbed him and the one before that and the one before that. If he was robbed mostly by white guys he would be watching white guys closely. See how that works? The black community needs to look into the mirror and blame the real issue, itself.
17
Re your thought that the "benefit of every reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of the civilian": Impossible. Jurors are asked whether any of them has a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of having acted unlawfully. The question is definitely not whether the victim was innocent. (The victim's circumstances are usually considered only when the judge imposes a sentence; if a defendant was found guilty of a particularly heinous crime, such as raping and killing a young child or a mass bombing that maimed and killed many people, a judge may impose a harsher sentence than for a lesser crime. Note, too, that sentencing is not part of a grand jury proceeding, since a grand jury decides only whether the defendant should go to trial.) In any event, whether in a grand jury proceeding or at trial, whatever doubt a juror may have about the defendant's having acted unlawfully should not be a generalized possibility, since the doubt must be "reasonable" - that is, doubt about the defendant's guilt should be based to the fullest extent possible on testimony of credible witnesses and physical evidence presented to the jury or, in other words, the doubt about guilt should be based on facts. The personal sympathies or points of view of jurors should not be the basis for deciding whether a defendant is guilty.
7
By such tortured logic every African American who walks into a store that has been robbed before by another African American is fair game for the Police to kill.
Yes, many stereotypes are, by definition, racist, as they make conclusions based on an oversimplified representation, rather than on the individual. And yes, people profile based on stereotypes. And yes, how you conduct your reactions is key. Unfortunately many people's reaction is clearly racist.
For example: "He sees a car full of black guys in a predominately white neighborhood, his spidy senses are going to go off as its out of place. That is NORMAL." Normal? Perhaps. But not right. I suspect the poster would prefer not to investigate the all-too-common occurrence of DWB (driving while black).
Yes, many stereotypes are, by definition, racist, as they make conclusions based on an oversimplified representation, rather than on the individual. And yes, people profile based on stereotypes. And yes, how you conduct your reactions is key. Unfortunately many people's reaction is clearly racist.
For example: "He sees a car full of black guys in a predominately white neighborhood, his spidy senses are going to go off as its out of place. That is NORMAL." Normal? Perhaps. But not right. I suspect the poster would prefer not to investigate the all-too-common occurrence of DWB (driving while black).
3
I don't understand the reason for this article/video other than to Troll for clicks and to sturr the proverbial pot. You can't just assume how a person GAVE their testimony. Sure you can read it but you have no idea how they GAVE it. Thus you get actors to read the testimony the way you want it read in order to come across a certain way so it meets your agenda.
The only way we will ever know the entire truth is by the evidence recovered at the scene. The damages to the officer/MB, the blood splatter in the car, the shell casing locations etc. All of these were looked at and the officer was not charged based on the evidence. Believe me if they could have found ANY reason to hang the officer out they would have as it was the EASY way out.
Also, do you HONESTLY believe that those two, who just strong armed a store clerk and stole cigarillos, were actually having a conversation on how they were going to better their lives? Really? Do you really believe that? You don't rob someone and walk down the center of the road like idiots and discuss how you are going to better yourself.
Black Lives Matters? Prove it! Protest the next 5 year old that gets killed in their bed sleeping by random gun fire. Riot the next time a mother is killed walking her kids home by gang crossfire. Loot and burn the next time innocent people are killed by black on black crime. This happens daily in the US. Step up or shut up.
The only way we will ever know the entire truth is by the evidence recovered at the scene. The damages to the officer/MB, the blood splatter in the car, the shell casing locations etc. All of these were looked at and the officer was not charged based on the evidence. Believe me if they could have found ANY reason to hang the officer out they would have as it was the EASY way out.
Also, do you HONESTLY believe that those two, who just strong armed a store clerk and stole cigarillos, were actually having a conversation on how they were going to better their lives? Really? Do you really believe that? You don't rob someone and walk down the center of the road like idiots and discuss how you are going to better yourself.
Black Lives Matters? Prove it! Protest the next 5 year old that gets killed in their bed sleeping by random gun fire. Riot the next time a mother is killed walking her kids home by gang crossfire. Loot and burn the next time innocent people are killed by black on black crime. This happens daily in the US. Step up or shut up.
88
Well on the other hand, I have seen a lot of lying police officers who give false reports about why they behaved the way they did when they killed or injured a Black person only to have the video evidence prove that what they said was wrong. According to your sophistry I should just assume that all cops lie so if I am ever on a jury I should just disregard everything the officer says happened. Unfortunately life is more complicated than you seem to be able to appreciate.Also Fortunately, people are better than you expect them to be. I am sorry if your life has been limited to interactions with simple minded prejudiced people but the good news is that there actually are a myriad of people who see other folks as just people....not Black not White Not criminal Not dishonest...simply people, and they are willing to judge them by their actions not by what other people have done. Your tirade insults these people and everything they stand for.
2
Not defending the misdirected anger, but it sometimes feels as though black lives don't matter to a certain population of blacks, which is why they need it to matter to someone, anyone with the power to change it.
The two accounts are so divergent that it hardly seems they are describing the same incident. This is why it is so important that every police officer wear a body camera with sound that cannot be edited so that events cannot be spun in front of a grand jury.
11
Apart from the rights and wrongs of the case and the fairness or otherwise of this presentation, the acting here is superb. The speech and manner, timing and body language, especially of the actor who plays Dorian Johnson are utterly convincing.
3
As you say in your lead, yes, Michael Brown was unarmed when shot by police officer Darren Wilson. However, you neglect to mention that Brown was shot while trying to take officer Wilson's gun and assaulting him. As such, the deadly forced used was lawful.
Ironic how you claim you are trying to set the record of the incident straight but immediately become disingenuous in your reporting.
Ironic how you claim you are trying to set the record of the incident straight but immediately become disingenuous in your reporting.
66
But he wasn't shot while trying to take the gun. He was shot some feet away from the officer.
6
Matt in the testimony Wilson stated at leased twice Brown was trying to get his gun so I agree whit you the was a lawful shooting and should have ben the end of the story.
6
He was shot while charging at the office proven by evidence at the scene. Don't just mention the part that supports your agenda and leave out the crucial part.
3
Until we can look at each case individually and not lump-sum all of these cases of violence into a racial paradigm the answers to create meaningful change will remain elusive and held down by dysfunctional and irrational beliefs.
9
This video reenactment is simply your interpretation. You portray Mr. Johnson as some aspiring, young african american who was just sharing with his kind, good ole boy friend how to move up in the world. Mr. Johnson had just been an accessory in a robbery and the slapping around of a small, minority man in his own business. Why don't you reenact that? At the end of the day, this is a tragedy on all sides. Nobody has won and if you think this makes people want to open their hearts and businesses to young, african american men from the hood then you are sadly mistaken. Just out of curiosity Mr. Weiner, what are you doing to give the Michael Browns and Dorian Johnsons of the world a leg up? We must quit pointing fingers and really begin to have the uncomfortable dialogue about what is going on in these communities. Address the need to wait to have children until after you finish junior high and high school, address the need to stay in school no matter what the circumstances, address the need to acquire a skill that will serve you and your family for the rest of your life. Show these young mothers ways to stay the course in spite of their choice to have children at such a young age. Businesses do not want to hire people who do not have an education or the proper social skills that allow co workers or customers to be at ease. Those are the facts. I lock my door when I see the Dorian Johnson and Michael Browns of the streets because of their actions. That is sad
35
I lock my door when I see the Dorian Johnson and Michael Browns of the streets because of their actions.
It's a shame that the store owner who was beaten and robbed by Johnson and Brown did not lock his store's door. Then again, he would have been called a "racist" if he did. Incredible how Brown and Johnson (implied to be a reliable witness in this article) can run around and rob and beat people with impunity. NY Times, what about some articles on this? Or would that be "racist" too?
It's a shame that the store owner who was beaten and robbed by Johnson and Brown did not lock his store's door. Then again, he would have been called a "racist" if he did. Incredible how Brown and Johnson (implied to be a reliable witness in this article) can run around and rob and beat people with impunity. NY Times, what about some articles on this? Or would that be "racist" too?
13
As I commented above, these sorts of presentations are heavily influenced/ biased by the presenter's sympathies. It speaks volumes that the NYT is still beating a dead horse in the Michael Brown matter, where the ship has already sailed on that case, instead of pursuing any number of current stories involving possible police brutality. Ferguson is trying to move on - I just saw this morning that the cake shop has a nice new website and is shipping caramel cakes. Why keep dredging this case up except for the media to get a nice dependable ratings grab?
8
The tragedy is that thinking like this--that the supposed moral "failures" of people with the same color skin of Mr. Brown's skin has everything to do with why he was killed--is still so prevalent in our society. Leaving aside the fact that you could substitute "poor white" for "african" without changing anything else, what strikes me the most is how skin color comes first, then moral judgements about a whole segment of the population second. Sir, do you lock your door when you see white people walk by?
2
What's left out here? Darren Wilson stands six-four and weighs 210 pounds. He was armed with a canister of professional grade mace and a telescoping steel baton. Does it seem likely that a man Wilson's size felt like a child confronted by Hulk Hogan? One thing to remember, the state was represented by a prosecutor. Michael Brown was unrepresented.
7
Wilson wasn't STANDING. He was SITTING in his car. Brown was leaning in the window, trying to take his gun away from him. The forensic evidence PROVES this.
20
The state wasn't represented by anyone. A prosecutor gave evidence to a grand jury; that evidence included the conclusions of a forensic scientist hired by the Brown family.
5
The unfortunate problem we live with is that when the police stop young men - of any color - wandering in the streets during the workday, this practice is often rewarded with arrests for drugs, weapons, probation violations, warrants, etc. The police also do this to drivers who they think present a higher chance for an arrest, by stopping cars for minor violations, such as a broken taillight, a crack in the windshield, or, in the case of Sandra Bland, a lane change without a signal. It is probably the main tool the police use to generate arrests. Once in a while, these stops get out of control, as in the case of Michael Brown, who apparently calculated his odds of overpowering a single, much smaller man well enough, as he had done in previous incidents such as when he intimidated the store clerk, but miscalculated how the cop would react and how it would end up in his own death.
The police need their tactics and equipment drastically altered, because if stopping people who are merely walking in the street was the job, the officer should have had other less-lethal options. And that means more than a Taser or non-lethal weapons - in this case, I think it would have been perfectly acceptable to even let Michael Brown get away. It's not like he was caught in the middle of a crime. The officer should never have tried to carry this stop off armed with only determination to win and a loaded gun.
The police need their tactics and equipment drastically altered, because if stopping people who are merely walking in the street was the job, the officer should have had other less-lethal options. And that means more than a Taser or non-lethal weapons - in this case, I think it would have been perfectly acceptable to even let Michael Brown get away. It's not like he was caught in the middle of a crime. The officer should never have tried to carry this stop off armed with only determination to win and a loaded gun.
5
do you think assaulting a police officer, trying to take his gun isn't a crime?
12
I have heard of Ferguson I just don't accept that there is any proof for the life or death of a specific Michael Brown, just like I don't believe in a mythical fellow with the name believers call Jesus ever lived or died or existed.
1
Both the state of Missouri and the US justice department found no evidence to charge the officer with a crime. Given the climate I don't think the justice department's goal was to rubber stamp the state's findings. They found that Dorian Brown's testimony was inconsistent and not believable. But that isn't enough for those who need every white cop to be a racist killer.
87
No evidence? The prosecutor drowned the Grand Jury in it with absolutely everything he had, including testimony he knew could not be true, in order to garner the desired result. This is a tactic used by prosecutors around the country with juries they know will not indict.
I find it curious that so few police killings get prosecuted and, fewer still, get a conviction. Take the case of the brutal beating of a homeless man in Fullerton, California. The OC County sheriffs got off when they should have been convicted for murder.
I find it curious that so few police killings get prosecuted and, fewer still, get a conviction. Take the case of the brutal beating of a homeless man in Fullerton, California. The OC County sheriffs got off when they should have been convicted for murder.
1
Well, people are suspicious. Centuries of slavery and oppression will do that to you. But to your substantive point that MO and the DOJ "found no evidence to charge the officer with a crime." That's not strictly true. What is true is that neither entity charged Wilson with a crime. Given the totality of the evidence, there was (they felt) insufficient likelihood of obtaining a conviction. That's quite different from saying that every piece of evidence pointed towards Wilson's innocence, which is what I think your comment implies.
1
Rima, now I please tell me how you dismiss the DOJ investigation. Is the Obama justice department part of the conspiracy to coverup the killing of black men by the police?
2
I'm waiting for the NYT to opine on the tragedy of black men killing white police officers. Other than a story buried deep on page A11, I haven't seen much about the police officer in Memphis who was shot and killed while investigating an illegally parked car.
Over 600 people were killed by police in 2014. As even Charles Blow has acknowledged, the egregious or questionable killings are a small fraction of the total. But if we really want to get police killings down, we need to stop using the police to address problems with the mentally ill.
Over 600 people were killed by police in 2014. As even Charles Blow has acknowledged, the egregious or questionable killings are a small fraction of the total. But if we really want to get police killings down, we need to stop using the police to address problems with the mentally ill.
24
Having read the NYT's story re; the New Yorker - Wilson seems the perfect mentality for this type of police work: one who doesn't question his surroundings - in his mind the sight of extreme poverty does not make him question society and his role in policing a community that he claims to prefer rather than policing in the white community. He does not stop to reflect on the off chance that this desire could be construed as preferring to police an environment where improper police behavior would not be questioned. That he was able to look the other way as the police department meted out a rough justice to the black community for years in fines and unrealistic and impossible hoops to jump through to keep from being locked up, brings a host of questions re: police training. Wilson seems oblivious to the part he played in keeping the black citizens of Ferguson constantly on edge preferring to blame 'the victim' for, in his mind, being raised so poorly. A black community like Ferguson provides a healthy revenue stream for the city - an officer can give a bogus ticket (jay-walking or no signal change) and never be questioned. Actions that in the white community would never be tolerated. Wilson and others now seem almost surprised that blacks would dare to want the same treatment. More black officers are needed to remove the taint of racism because fighting crime is hard enough but fighting racism - for some - is far deadlier.
5
There's not a word in the article or film that remotely supports a word of what you just said, Gwen. That is 100% your own interpretation.
3
What's very clear to me after watching this video is that officer Wilson's perception of the people he's charged with policing, he sees them as "anti-police". Then defines that by describing the crime that takes place in that community. He doesn't see people living there, in his mind they are all just criminals. That's the problem, his perception of Mike Brown. It's like a big game hunter approaching his prey and gets too close, the animal attacks so he shoots. He could have called for backup. But in his mind Mike Brown was a dangerous criminal, instead of a big knuckle-head boy doing dumb things. His perception and approach shows he was not qualified to police that community.
7
In the video it is Dorian Johnson, not Darren Wilson, who reports on the widespread anti-police attitude in the community.
5
AY, you're right! Michael Brown was a big knuckle-head boy doing dumb things.
Doing dumb things that could have ended Officer Wilson's life. Neither Michael Brown or Officer Wilson should have lost their life that day. But when you struggle with a police officer over a gun, most times someone is going to get hurt. Not talking from personal experience, I have more sense than to do that.
Doing dumb things that could have ended Officer Wilson's life. Neither Michael Brown or Officer Wilson should have lost their life that day. But when you struggle with a police officer over a gun, most times someone is going to get hurt. Not talking from personal experience, I have more sense than to do that.
7
"a big knuckle-head boy doing dumb things..." You're kidding, right? That's what you call robbery and assault?
1
The opening paragraph omits very important facts about the Ferguson case. "On Aug. 9, 2014, a white police officer, Darren Wilson, shot an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, on a street in that suburb of St. Louis." According to witnesses who testified in the Grand Jury and Eric Holder's DOJ investigation into the incident revealed that Officer Wilson was justified in defending himself from a violent attack by Michael Brown following his robbery of a convenience store.
31
I'm sorry but that is wholly incorrect. The DOJ report never once suggested that Wilson's action was "justified." The DOJ report concluded that they could find no prosecutable behavior on the part of Darren Wilson to warrant further investigation. More importantly, the DOJ study detailed a Ferguson Police Force engaged in a pattern of unconstitutional stops and arrests, engaged in excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and engaged in "practices motivated by discriminatory intent."
According to the report, "this investigation has revealed a pattern or practice of unlawful conduct within the Ferguson Police Department that violates the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and federal statutory law."
The conclusions reached by the report are far from what you describe as "justified behavior"
According to the report, "this investigation has revealed a pattern or practice of unlawful conduct within the Ferguson Police Department that violates the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and federal statutory law."
The conclusions reached by the report are far from what you describe as "justified behavior"
1
The fact that the report could find no prosecutable behavior on the part of Officer Darren Wilson to warrant further investigation reveals that he did nothing illegal or improper while being attacked by Mr. Brown.
The rest of your response (which I don't dispute) has nothing to do with Mr. Brown's violent attack of Officer Wilson and the Grand Jury and DOJ's exoneration of Officer Wilson.
The rest of your response (which I don't dispute) has nothing to do with Mr. Brown's violent attack of Officer Wilson and the Grand Jury and DOJ's exoneration of Officer Wilson.
What a waste of 16 minutes. It is obvious that the black lady interviewer was definitely hostile toward Wilson and supportive of Johnson and Brown. Johnson's eyes are shifty and does not maintain eye contact. I wonder who shot Johnson? Was it a police person or was it one of the gang members that Wilson talks about living in that dangerous neighborhood? There is no mention of the not just theft that Brown had committed but also the bullying that he did to the store owner and did with Officer Wilson.
And in response to Johnson's statement that the situation could have been resolved with a different outcome, how true. All Brown would have had to do was follow the directions given by Officer Wilson.
What's Johnson doing now with his life? Had he been shot once before one would think that would have been a wake up call to straighten up his life.
And in response to Johnson's statement that the situation could have been resolved with a different outcome, how true. All Brown would have had to do was follow the directions given by Officer Wilson.
What's Johnson doing now with his life? Had he been shot once before one would think that would have been a wake up call to straighten up his life.
15
Any "verbatim" taken from thousands of pages of documents will necessarily be highly selective. But this production does highlight how many outrageous lies were told: "He was shot in the back." "Wilson didn't even know about the theft, which had happened much earlier." And on and on.
Grand juries take testimony face-to-face rather than hire actors to read lines written by the witnesses, or scan depositions. Observation of the witness is considered to be essential to fair weighing of his testimony. I won't argue with that.
The first question raised by this testimony is: "Who owns the street?" Apparently the two thieves thought they did, and at least one of them aimed to enforce that view.
The second question is, "If police ask a citizen to obey the law, for instance to get off the street, then how should police respond to non-compliance?" I think we'd all be safer if everyone obeyed the lawful orders of police, and hence I can't condone failure to do so.
Suppose Wilson had not been armed. Then, would we have expected him to fight off Brown with his bare hands--and in addition attempt to detain him? Or what, exactly? I want the police empowered to carry out arrests by any means actually necessary.
Given that Wilson was armed, and that the physical evidence shows that Brown reached for the weapon and struck Wilson, I applaud the hyperactive imaginations of those who assert that it was up to Wilson to do "something different." Wilson's life "has value" also.
Grand juries take testimony face-to-face rather than hire actors to read lines written by the witnesses, or scan depositions. Observation of the witness is considered to be essential to fair weighing of his testimony. I won't argue with that.
The first question raised by this testimony is: "Who owns the street?" Apparently the two thieves thought they did, and at least one of them aimed to enforce that view.
The second question is, "If police ask a citizen to obey the law, for instance to get off the street, then how should police respond to non-compliance?" I think we'd all be safer if everyone obeyed the lawful orders of police, and hence I can't condone failure to do so.
Suppose Wilson had not been armed. Then, would we have expected him to fight off Brown with his bare hands--and in addition attempt to detain him? Or what, exactly? I want the police empowered to carry out arrests by any means actually necessary.
Given that Wilson was armed, and that the physical evidence shows that Brown reached for the weapon and struck Wilson, I applaud the hyperactive imaginations of those who assert that it was up to Wilson to do "something different." Wilson's life "has value" also.
29
I've commented on this before, it's the power of the powerful armoury that each cop wears on their bodies every single day, it's seeped into their very ego and being. Every thing is about control, and the cops' power to exert it in their precincts. I dare you a cross a line where I'm king, you'll regret it, and I have the weapons to enforce my diktat.
We Americans must think that law breakers in the UK and Europe must be a jelly-spined lot, hence the cops there don't need or use deadly weapons. Only we have the hardened criminals, all black of course, and they all deserve to die at the slightest provocation. Oh, and of course, I'll get away with it. I'm white and privileged, remember?
We Americans must think that law breakers in the UK and Europe must be a jelly-spined lot, hence the cops there don't need or use deadly weapons. Only we have the hardened criminals, all black of course, and they all deserve to die at the slightest provocation. Oh, and of course, I'll get away with it. I'm white and privileged, remember?
3
It's only in England — not even the entire UK — that the police go generally without firearms. In most of Europe the police are as well armed as US cops are.
4
We have a horrible problem with some of our police. It is esential that we correct this.
Yes, it would help a lot if "maybe we can come a little closer to understanding this flash point in a nightmarish year of violence."
But Dorian Johnson is a liar. He has been thoroughly discredited. Repeating his lies does not get us "a little closer to understanding."
I don't personally believe the officer either. The only way to get "a little closer to understanding" is to do a reconstruction of what the investigation found actually happened, starting with objective facts like the autopsy and location of shell casings.
"He said one lie, the other guy told a different lie" does nothing for understanding. It just makes everyone angry all over again.
If you want to get angry, look at the uncontested facts like the video of shooting a guy in the back, or shooting a child in a park for a toy gun, or shooting a guy in WalMart for holding one of the BB guns they sell there.
Re-enacting lies doesn't help anything.
Yes, it would help a lot if "maybe we can come a little closer to understanding this flash point in a nightmarish year of violence."
But Dorian Johnson is a liar. He has been thoroughly discredited. Repeating his lies does not get us "a little closer to understanding."
I don't personally believe the officer either. The only way to get "a little closer to understanding" is to do a reconstruction of what the investigation found actually happened, starting with objective facts like the autopsy and location of shell casings.
"He said one lie, the other guy told a different lie" does nothing for understanding. It just makes everyone angry all over again.
If you want to get angry, look at the uncontested facts like the video of shooting a guy in the back, or shooting a child in a park for a toy gun, or shooting a guy in WalMart for holding one of the BB guns they sell there.
Re-enacting lies doesn't help anything.
79
The forensic evidence supports the officer's story. So if you didn't particularly believe the officer and think some other reconstruction of what the investigation found would get us closer to understanding, well that reconstruction would look very similar to the officer's account.
14
I share your view that we should pursue the truth through rigorous examination of facts. I'm curious -- what facts do you have to support your belief that the police officer wasn't telling the truth?
2
I couldn't stand to listen or watch the whole thing. It is my opinion that the officer was foolish in the way he escalated the whole event and got himself in the position that he did. It cost Micheal Brown his life. Even with the cigarillos, this was not a just cause for what amounted to an execution for dissing a police officer. Walking in the middle of the road was not a reason for hitting them with the police car to begin with. And what proof did the officer have that Micheal Brown was indeed the thief at that point, other than circumstantial ones? I have looked at the video of the store when Brown allegedly stole the cigarillos. It appeared to me, that Brown had waited to be waited on, which didn't happen in a timely way..not that that was an excuse to just take them. It could be surmised, that Brown experienced in his daily life, enough diminishing to not react reasonably to the police officer's very unreasonable approach to the two men ambling down the road.
13
Hitting them with the police car? What are you talking about?
6
The police cruiser didn't hit either Dorian Johnson or Michael Brown. In the video, Johnson says, "if we didn't hear the tires screech, the back of his cruiser would have struck one of us."
Officer Darren Wilson knew that Johnson and Brown fit the description of the suspect from the convenience store robbery a few blocks away. He had the description of the clothing the suspects wore, and he saw the cigarillos in Brown's hand. He clearly had reason to detain them. How can you question them when you know he was correct in identifying them as the suspects? If Brown had not resisted arrest, there would have been no shooting. Wilson didn't shoot him because he robbed the video store.
Officer Darren Wilson knew that Johnson and Brown fit the description of the suspect from the convenience store robbery a few blocks away. He had the description of the clothing the suspects wore, and he saw the cigarillos in Brown's hand. He clearly had reason to detain them. How can you question them when you know he was correct in identifying them as the suspects? If Brown had not resisted arrest, there would have been no shooting. Wilson didn't shoot him because he robbed the video store.
17
Looking at the evidence and the testomony the officer didn't escalate the situation. He conducted his duties as he should and it was Brown that escalated the situation including attacking the officer in his car and fighting over the officer's weapon. And the forensic evidence supports very clearly that this is what happened. Remember Brown just finished robbing a store by just pushing his way out of the store like it was nothing. He was about to get caught and arrested and the officer was doing his duty to stop him when he saw the merchandise from the robbery on him. So the officer went back to question him and Brown first prevented him from exiting the car, then fought with him. Who is escalating? The officer for trying stop a guy that is suspected in a strong arm robbery? Really?
16
The feeling I came away with when the details of the confrontation came out, and later, the way the testimony was presented to the Grand Jury hasn't changed. Wilson's interview, published in the New Yorker, confirms every suspicion of racial bias on his part. It also confirms a commonplace inadequate education in the most basic understanding of social ethics, the exercise of critical thinking, and wide gaps in training specific to police in de-escalation and neutralizing a suspect without the use of deadly force. No one, absolutely no one, should die in the situation Darren Wilson and Mike Brown were in.
The observations I have are regarding the Grand Jury process and how it is abused by certain prosecutors to legitimize police violence. There were many problems with the way this case was presented. They still need analysis.
Lastly, Senator McCaskill publicly stated that she was involved in behind the scenes negotiations that included the governor. This was on or around November 18, while the Department of Justice was still conducting its investigation. That make one question the process and her role in it.
Darren Wilson got away with murder. Mike Brown's family was robbed of their son's life and their right to see that justice is done.
---
Video: Scarborough, McCaskill: Darren Wilson getting his life back
http://www.rimaregas.com/2014/11/scarborough-mccaskill-on-darren-wilson-...
The observations I have are regarding the Grand Jury process and how it is abused by certain prosecutors to legitimize police violence. There were many problems with the way this case was presented. They still need analysis.
Lastly, Senator McCaskill publicly stated that she was involved in behind the scenes negotiations that included the governor. This was on or around November 18, while the Department of Justice was still conducting its investigation. That make one question the process and her role in it.
Darren Wilson got away with murder. Mike Brown's family was robbed of their son's life and their right to see that justice is done.
---
Video: Scarborough, McCaskill: Darren Wilson getting his life back
http://www.rimaregas.com/2014/11/scarborough-mccaskill-on-darren-wilson-...
29
Rima, one very good outcome of the protests is that the police will wear video cams. Hopefully, the technology will improve and that seems likely because of the need for accurate record. Video will have to cause attitude changes. It's hard to imagine suffering the loss of a loved one through violence by police, but as least video will bring justice and hopefully change.
Lastly? What about the report from the Department of Justice? They were YEARNING to pin the blame for the death of Michael Brown on Darren Wilson, but they were UNABLE to do so. Instead, they cleared him of responsibility. Why is that FACT ignored by those who can't handle the truth?
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachment...
A shame the gentle giant threw away his own life and ruined the life of a good cop. A shame supporters of the thug are determined to perpetuate the false narrative of what happened, even though forensic evidence proves otherwise.
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachment...
A shame the gentle giant threw away his own life and ruined the life of a good cop. A shame supporters of the thug are determined to perpetuate the false narrative of what happened, even though forensic evidence proves otherwise.
22
Are you insane? Racial bias? He first stopped to guys walking in the middle of the street, clearly because they were in the middle of the street, duh. He would have done that regardless of who it was. Secondly when he saw the cigars from the reported robbery, he went back to question the person he sees carring what was just stolen. What does that have to do with race? After that it was Brown that created the situation that led to the shooting. The forensic evidence supports that and the grand jury made its decision based on the testimony and evidence presented, noting that the physical evidence matched offer Wilson's account of what happened and was significantly different from that of Dorian's. I don't see anything in this video that would make you think that race had anything to do with it. That is a completely illogical and not supported by the facts at hand.
19