So I should stick to facts and you can make up whatever shit you want to suit your narrative. AAA asked you a question. You dodged one part of it and made up a scenario on the other to fit your narrative. It's ok, you don't have to answer. We all know the answer. But when you refuse to answer it speaks volumes.
You were content to discuss it when it first came out. Now that the facts begin to dispute your original commentary, you're content to wait. What a sham you are.
It seemed like a simple enough question to me. I also like how he frames it to make it look like the cop was wrong to try to get them out of the middle of the street. They were totally blameless, walking down the middle of the street, looking for trouble.
That's my point. He can't answer your question, because there is only one answer - and that is that the police has the right to detain someone breaking the law. So when he asks a question of "why am I in a fight with two guys in the first place, one who is bigger than me", he throws out the obligation of the police officer to stop and question the individual, and then further ignores that the suspect might have started an altercation. He's a liberal. They operate on the assumption that there are racist reasons for all actions that include multiple races.
Wondering why he left his car to confront a couple of jaywalkers is not "framing it to make the cop look like he was wrong". They were not necessarily "blameless" nor were they necessarily "looking for trouble". All that has been established is that they were jaywalking. You bring the rest yourself. As for leaving it to the grand jury, there seems to be little else to do now that everything that was there to be said has been said. There's just nothing more to discuss. Or wasn't. This came up and provides something new. Whether it is of any value remains to be seen, but it may help clarify what I was saying earlier about evidence. If you can evaluate it objectively, you're way ahead of most everybody else: Workers who were witnesses provide new perspective on Michael Brown shooting Among the claims that ignited the fury over the fatal shooting of Michael Brown were that Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson chased the unarmed teen on foot, shot at him as he ran away, then fired a barrage of fatal shots after Brown had turned around with his hands up. Almost all of the witnesses who shared these accounts with media either knew Brown; lived at or near the Canfield Green apartments, where the shooting occurred; or were visiting friends or relatives there. But there were two outsiders who happened to be working outside at the apartment complex on Aug. 9 — two men from a company in Jefferson County — who heard a single gunshot, looked up from their work and witnessed the shooting. Both have given their statements to the St. Louis County police and the FBI. One of the men agreed to share his account with a Post-Dispatch reporter on the condition that his name and employer not be used. The worker, who has not previously spoken with reporters, said he did not see what happened at the officer’s car — where Wilson and Brown engaged in an initial struggle and a shot was fired from Wilson’s gun. His account largely matches those who reported that Wilson chased Brown on foot away from the car after the initial gunshot and fired at least one more shot in the direction of Brown as he was fleeing; that Brown stopped, turned around and put his hands up; and that the officer killed Brown in a barrage of gunfire. But his account does little to clarify perhaps the most critical moment of the confrontation, on which members of the grand jury in St. Louis County may focus to determine whether the officer was justified in using lethal force: whether Brown moved toward Wilson just before the fatal shots, and if he did, how aggressively. At least one witness has said Brown was not moving. Others didn’t mention him moving, while still others have said he was heading toward Wilson. There is no way to determine how many witnesses have spoken to law enforcement without making public statements. The worker acknowledged that his account could be valuable to the case because he did not know either Brown or Wilson and had no ties to Ferguson. The worker said he saw Brown on Aug. 9 about 11 a.m. as Brown was walking west on Canfield Drive, toward West Florissant Avenue. . . . About a half-hour later, the worker heard a gunshot. Then he saw Brown running away from a police car. Wilson trailed about 10 to 15 feet behind, gun in hand. About 90 feet away from the car, the worker said, Wilson fired another shot at Brown, whose back was turned. The worker said Brown stumbled and then stopped, put his hands up, turned around and said, “OK, OK, OK, OK, OK.” He said he told investigators from the St. Louis County police and the FBI that because of the stumble, it seemed to him that Brown had been wounded. A private autopsy showed that all but one of his gunshot wounds came while Brown was facing Wilson. Shawn L. Parcells, who participated in the autopsy, said one of the wounds to the arm could have occurred when Brown was facing away from Wilson. “It’s inconclusive,” he said. St. Louis County and federal autopsy results have not been released. Wilson, gun drawn, also stopped about 10 feet in front of Brown, the worker said. Then Brown moved, the worker said. “He’s kind of walking back toward the cop.” He said Brown’s hands were still up. Wilson began backing up as he fired, the worker said. After the third shot, Brown’s hands started going down, and he moved about 25 feet toward Wilson, who kept backing away and firing. The worker said he could not tell from where he watched — about 50 feet away — if Brown’s motion toward Wilson after the shots was “a stumble to the ground” or “OK, I’m going to get you, you’re already shooting me.” Among people who have spoken to the media, there hasn’t been a clear consensus on what happened after Brown turned around. Dorian Johnson — a friend of Brown’s who said he was walking with him when Wilson approached them on Canfield and told them to get off the street — told CNN that Brown was “beginning to tell the officer he was unarmed and to tell him to stop shooting.” Johnson, 22, told KTVI Brown was starting to get down when he was shot. Johnson also told MSNBC that Wilson began shooting before Brown “could get his last words out.” Another witness who lives nearby, Michael T. Brady, 32, told CNN that Brown turned with his hands under his stomach. He also said Brown took one or two steps toward Wilson as he was going down when Wilson fired three or four more times. Piaget Crenshaw, who lives in the Canfield apartments, and Tiffany Mitchell, her boss, were in different places in the complex. Crenshaw told CNN that Brown didn’t move toward Wilson. In several statements to reporters, neither has mentioned Brown moving toward Wilson. The New York Times quoted James McKnight as saying Brown stumbled toward Wilson, who was 6 to 7 feet away. Phillip Walker, 40, another Canfield Green resident, told the Post-Dispatch on Tuesday that Brown was walking at a steady pace toward Wilson, with his hands up. “Not quickly,” Walker said. “He did not rush the officer.” Walker, who is distantly related to a Post-Dispatch reporter not involved in this report, said the last shot, into the top of Brown’s head, was from about 4 feet away. “It wasn’t justified because he didn’t pose no threat to the officer. I don’t understand why he didn’t Tase him if he deemed him to be hostile. He didn’t have no weapon on him. I was confused on why he was shooting his rounds off like that into this individual,” Walker said. The co-worker in the KTVI interview said he “starting hearing pops and when I look over … I seen somebody staggering and running. And when he finally caught himself he threw his hands up and started screaming, ‘OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, OK.’” He said the officer “didn’t say, ‘Get on the ground.’ He didn’t say anything. At first his gun was down and then he … got about 8 to 10 feet away from him … I heard six, seven shots … it seemed like seven. Then he put his gun down. That’s when Michael stumbled forward. I’d say about 25 feet or so and then fell right on his face.” No witness has ever publicly claimed that Brown charged at Wilson. The worker interviewed by the Post-Dispatch disputed claims by Wilson’s defenders that Brown was running full speed at the officer. “I don’t know if he was going after him or if he was falling down to die,” he said. “It wasn’t a bull rush.” Jeremy Kohler
I would hope we can all agree on this. Cameras are cheap. Each officer and each patrol car should have one. I am sure there is technology that would start the officer's camera anytime he left the car. Mount it on his chest. I would think cops would demand it to protect themselves from bogus claims of unnecessary force. These police forces can afford all kinds of high tech SWAT gear, they can afford a camera.
And that's been getting a great deal of new attention lately, largely due to this case. If people don't get bored with it and turn their attention back to Kim Kardashian, changes might be in the offing.
If I were a "good" cop I'd provide and wear my own camera. Of course if I was a "bad" cop I'd resist tooth and nail wearing a camera.
Stop and seize Aggressive police take hundreds of millions of dollars from motorists not charged with crimes A thriving subculture of road officers on the network now competes to see who can seize the most cash and contraband, describing their exploits in the network’s chat rooms and sharing “trophy shots” of money and drugs. Some police advocate highway interdiction as a way of raising revenue for cash-strapped municipalities. “All of our home towns are sitting on a tax-liberating gold mine,” Deputy Ron Hain of Kane County, Ill., wrote in a self-published book under a pseudonym. Hain is a marketing specialist for Desert Snow, a leading interdiction training firm based in Guthrie, Okla., whose founders also created Black Asphalt. Hain’s book calls for “turning our police forces into present-day Robin Hoods.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/