• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lawyer: Police Haven't Talked To Michael Brown Shooting Witness

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Ferguson police haven't yet interviewed Dorian Johnson, the friend who was with Michael Brown on the night he was shot by police, Johnson's lawyer tells MSNBC's Trymaine Lee.
Freeman Bosley, Johnson’s attorney, told msnbc that the police have yet to interview Johnson. Bosley said that he offered the police an opportunity to speak with Johnson, but they declined.
“They didn’t even want to talk to him,” said Bosley, a former mayor of St. Louis. “They don’t want the facts. What they want is to justify what happened … what they are trying to do now is justify what happened instead of trying to point out the wrong. Something is wrong here and that’s what it is.”




Read more @: Lawyer: Police Haven't Talked To Michael Brown Shooting Witness

The police havent even interviewed one of the key witnesses. Many witnesses back up Johnson's claims as well. I think its pretty that the police know they did something incredibly wrong and are trying their best to disclose as least amount of information possible.


 
I will say, it's rather fishy this thug isn't under arrest if the police are telling the truth about the incident. He was one of the folks who supposedly assaulted the officer in his car. He can claim what he wants, I'd expect that from someone guilty, but if he is guilty why isn't he under arrest?
 
I will say, it's rather fishy this thug isn't under arrest if the police are telling the truth about the incident. He was one of the folks who supposedly assaulted the officer in his car. He can claim what he wants, I'd expect that from someone guilty, but if he is guilty why isn't he under arrest?

This "thug?"

And I agree - it's hard to believe the police haven't interviewed a witness that was a participant in the deadly incident. How do they expect the investigation to be taken seriously if they're not interested in even talking to the witness until days later.
 
This "thug?"

And I agree - it's hard to believe the police haven't interviewed a witness that was a participant in the deadly incident. How do they expect the investigation to be taken seriously if they're not interested in even talking to the witness until days later.


He's not a witness according to police, but a fellow perpetrator. And yes, thug. These are not innocent children though the press have been doing their best to characterize them so.

But it is indeed very suspicious that he isn't under arrest if they did assault the officer as claimed by the police.
 
He's not a witness according to police, but a fellow perpetrator. And yes, thug. These are not innocent children though the press have been doing their best to characterize them so.

What do you know about this person to label him a thug? What crime has he been accused of committing here? Not walking on the sidewalk?

But it is indeed very suspicious that he isn't under arrest if they did assault the officer as claimed by the police.

"They" haven't been accused of assaulting the officer - the dead person is being accused of that. The police in the clip said "one person complied, the other didn't" to a request to get the f on the sidewalk, or words to that effect. So if he complied with the officer's request, however stated, he's still a thug?
 
What do you know about this person to label him a thug? What crime has he been accused of committing here? Not walking on the sidewalk?



"They" haven't been accused of assaulting the officer - the dead person is being accused of that. The police in the clip said "one person complied, the other didn't" to a request to get the f on the sidewalk, or words to that effect. So if he complied with the officer's request, however stated, he's still a thug?

The stories of what happened are all over the place. Johnson admits to the car door thing and the struggle between Brown and the officer. Johnson ran, he says back to his "daughter and his woman". He sounds couched by the best, is Sharpton there yet?
 
The stories of what happened are all over the place. Johnson admits to the car door thing and the struggle between Brown and the officer. Johnson ran, he says back to his "daughter and his woman". He sounds couched by the best, is Sharpton there yet?

This is why cops should be required to wear video equipment. If we had video, there would be no question.
 
The stories of what happened are all over the place. Johnson admits to the car door thing and the struggle between Brown and the officer. Johnson ran, he says back to his "daughter and his woman". He sounds couched by the best, is Sharpton there yet?

What possible motive could an 18 year old, who had a clean record, was starting college this week, and by all accounts a law abiding citizen have to assault and shoot a cop?

And what possible crime was he suspected of when the cop stopped him? Nearest I can see is that he was guilty of walking down a street, while black, in the middle of the day.
 
The stories of what happened are all over the place. Johnson admits to the car door thing and the struggle between Brown and the officer. Johnson ran, he says back to his "daughter and his woman". He sounds couched by the best, is Sharpton there yet?

The stories are "all over the place" but you've already decided the guy is a lying thug. Got it. I can't imagine how you've come to that conclusion....

BTW, what does it mean to be "couched" by the best? And he wouldn't have had a chance to be coached "by the best" if the incompetent cops had interviewed him shortly after the incident, and now that they have NOT, it's a good excuse for you to assume the guy is a liar. Neat trick you got going there. Using the incompetence of the police to impeach the story of a witness, or according to you, fellow perpetrator!
 
What possible motive could an 18 year old, who had a clean record, was starting college this week, and by all accounts a law abiding citizen have to assault and shoot a cop?

And what possible crime was he suspected of when the cop stopped him? Nearest I can see is that he was guilty of walking down a street, while black, in the middle of the day.


Outrage over the death of a black male by a Police officer is a massive waste of energy.

The leading cause of death for black males ages 16-19 is murder.

Over 90 percent of those murders are committed by other black males.

Not Police officers.

The shooting should be investigated but whats coming is a show trial with a guilty verdict because of the threat of riots.

And while all this is going on black males are being murdered at a highly disproportional rate than any other race

No outrage there.
 
Outrage over the death of a black male by a Police officer is a massive waste of energy.

The leading cause of death for black males ages 16-19 is murder.

Over 90 percent of those murders are committed by other black males.

Not Police officers.

The shooting should be investigated but whats coming is a show trial with a guilty verdict because of the threat of riots.

And while all this is going on black males are being murdered at a highly disproportional rate than any other race

No outrage there.

Sooooo.... you are good with cops killing kids, because...uh

Hell, I can't even attempt to see how you justify your reasoning.

Sure wish you could experience what it is like to be suspected of everything by the cops because you just happen to be black. Maybe then you could understand a bit better.

If your child was killed by a cop when they did nothing wrong, other than looking a certain way, how would you feel?
 
Sooooo.... you are good with cops killing kids, because...uh

Hell, I can't even attempt to see how you justify your reasoning.

Sure wish you could experience what it is like to be suspected of everything by the cops because you just happen to be black. Maybe then you could understand a bit better.

If your child was killed by a cop when they did nothing wrong, other than looking a certain way, how would you feel?


Sooooo......you're good with calling this Cop guilty before his case ever goes to trial.

You've made allot of assumptions there.

You share a mindset with all the rioters.

Good for you.
 
Something's up. Cops aren't talking to witnesses, not releasing any 411, sure stinks IMO. Maybe the FBI has taken control over the investigation? We don't know what's happening behind the scenes, but for a PD to remain silent is not a good thing, it makes one in their department appear guilty of something.
 
What possible motive could an 18 year old, who had a clean record, was starting college this week, and by all accounts a law abiding citizen have to assault and shoot a cop?

And what possible crime was he suspected of when the cop stopped him? Nearest I can see is that he was guilty of walking down a street, while black, in the middle of the day.

Listen to Johnson's statement of events, he was there after all. He did indeed by ALL accounts struggle with the officer in the officer's car and was shot once in that struggle.
 
Outrage over the death of a black male by a Police officer is a massive waste of energy.

The leading cause of death for black males ages 16-19 is murder.

Over 90 percent of those murders are committed by other black males.

Not Police officers.

The shooting should be investigated but whats coming is a show trial with a guilty verdict because of the threat of riots.

And while all this is going on black males are being murdered at a highly disproportional rate than any other race

No outrage there.

First of all, it's interesting you already characterize the future trial (if there is one) as a "show trial" which assumes by the characterization that the guilty verdict, if there is one, will be not based on what happened, but because the jury is threatened by riots by blacks. Lots of baseless assumptions built into your narrative, and a strong implication that the officer is innocent.

And in this case, by all the accounts I've seen, the person killed was a good person - going to college, stayed out of trouble, etc. That's WHY there is outrage, when there is less or little or none when a gang banger gets killed.

Finally, don't you think the residents have a right to expect more out of cops than from gang bangers - that they should expect that their children who aren't a threat, aren't dealing drugs, aren't carrying weapons, don't get shot in the street by the police, with their hands up? If they should expect that, then you're saying because some members of the black community aren't, in your view, sufficiently outraged by black on black violence, they somehow have no legitimate authority to protest when one of their own is killed by a cop? I don't understand the logic there.
 
The stories are "all over the place" but you've already decided the guy is a lying thug. Got it. I can't imagine how you've come to that conclusion....

BTW, what does it mean to be "couched" by the best? And he wouldn't have had a chance to be coached "by the best" if the incompetent cops had interviewed him shortly after the incident, and now that they have NOT, it's a good excuse for you to assume the guy is a liar. Neat trick you got going there. Using the incompetence of the police to impeach the story of a witness, or according to you, fellow perpetrator!

I didn't call him a "lying thug", that's your invention, I called him a thug plain and simple. He's not an angel, nor was Brown. If you listen to Johnson's statement to the press he does indeed sound couched. You can see him struggling to keep his language under control. There's even a handler holding him by the shoulder encouraging him to keep to the story.

That said, I don't believe the police will be able to gloss this one over, nor should they. What started with an overreaction by the officer lead to the officer murdering Brown. That's my take on what I've heard thus far.
 
Listen to Johnson's statement of events, he was there after all. He did indeed by ALL accounts struggle with the officer in the officer's car and was shot once in that struggle.

So what - the reason Brown was struggling with the officer is sort of the key question. If you're walking down the street and some cop pulls up next to you, grabs your neck, then shirt, I don't think at that point I can blame YOU for that struggle, but you're blaming the dead kid here based on what?

And we don't know yet that he was shot more than one time because they haven't released any information, but Johnson also said Brown was shot while running away, unarmed, and shot AT (at least) after he'd stopped, turned around and had his hands up in the air.
 
So what - the reason Brown was struggling with the officer is sort of the key question. If you're walking down the street and some cop pulls up next to you, grabs your neck, then shirt, I don't think at that point I can blame YOU for that struggle, but you're blaming the dead kid here based on what?

You obviously are not listening to Johnson's version of events, even though you admit he was a "witness". Your description of what happened is different than even his. I understand, you're trying to repair your argument. Again, IF Johnson's version is correct, I blame the officer for his initial overreaction (grabbing Brown when as Johnson admits they "accidentally" kicked the car door closed on him). I blame Brown for the struggle in the car. I blame Brown for running after the struggle in the car. I blame the officer for coming up on a surrendered Brown and murdering him.

And we don't know yet that he was shot more than one time because they haven't released any information, but Johnson also said Brown was shot while running away, unarmed, and shot AT (at least) after he'd stopped, turned around and had his hands up in the air.

Yes, Johnson has spoken to the media and said Brown was shot once in the car, fled, was shot again after being warned to stop, and then several times more after he went to his knees and put his hands up.
 
I didn't call him a "lying thug", that's your invention, I called him a thug plain and simple. He's not an angel, nor was Brown. If you listen to Johnson's statement to the press he does indeed sound couched. You can see him struggling to keep his language under control. There's even a handler holding him by the shoulder encouraging him to keep to the story.

Well, what you did is call him a thug, then accused him of telling a story that someone coached him to say. That's also known as lying. If his story is the truth as he recalls it, and you believe it, then why would you assume that a story truthfully told has been coached? Few of us faced with a camera are eloquent, but you've taken someone who can't tell a story on camera as smoothly as a news anchor and assumed because he can't that he's lying or repeating a coached account. It's funny in a sad/pathetic way.

And now you're telling me based on nothing more concrete than his language that he's 'no angel.' How many ways can you negatively stereotype Johnson? Are you shooting for a record of baseless allegations of character flaws in one thread?

That said, I don't believe the police will be able to gloss this one over, nor should they. What started with an overreaction by the officer lead to the officer murdering Brown. That's my take on what I've heard thus far.

You're really making no sense. The kid is a thug whose story has been coached, but you believe him? OK, I do too. But because I do, I must assume his story is his and an accurate account of what happened (as best he can recall) and not the story concocted by a slick lawyer for some nefarious purpose.
 
First of all, it's interesting you already characterize the future trial (if there is one) as a "show trial" which assumes by the characterization that the guilty verdict, if there is one, will be not based on what happened, but because the jury is threatened by riots by blacks. Lots of baseless assumptions built into your narrative, and a strong implication that the officer is innocent.

And in this case, by all the accounts I've seen, the person killed was a good person - going to college, stayed out of trouble, etc. That's WHY there is outrage, when there is less or little or none when a gang banger gets killed.

Finally, don't you think the residents have a right to expect more out of cops than from gang bangers - that they should expect that their children who aren't a threat, aren't dealing drugs, aren't carrying weapons, don't get shot in the street by the police, with their hands up? If they should expect that, then you're saying because some members of the black community aren't, in your view, sufficiently outraged by black on black violence, they somehow have no legitimate authority to protest when one of their own is killed by a cop? I don't understand the logic there.


LOL !

You can't be this naive.

Yea sure, those were "residents " rioting and burning down other people's property. ...

Those "residents " are making the assumption that this Cops guilty and you seem to agree.

What they EXPECT is a GUILTY verdict which pretty much backs my assertion that the coming trial will be just a technicality to a eventual guilty verdict

If one is not delivered, these " residents " will have another reason to destroyx rob and loot.
 
What they EXPECT is a GUILTY verdict which pretty much backs my assertion that the coming trial will be just a technicality to a eventual guilty verdict.

You guys said the exact same thing about the Zimmerman trial and that never happened.
 
You obviously are not listening to Johnson's version of events, even though you admit he was a "witness". Your description of what happened is different than even his. I understand, you're trying to repair your argument. Again, IF Johnson's version is correct, I blame the officer for his initial overreaction (grabbing Brown when as Johnson admits they "accidentally" kicked the car door closed on him). I blame Brown for the struggle in the car. I blame Brown for running after the struggle in the car. I blame the officer for coming up on a surrendered Brown and murdering him.

I 'admit' he was a witness? No, it's just a fact that I accept.

And Johnson didn't admit the two black men accidentally kicked the door closed, he says the officer tried to open it, and the door bounced off of Johnson. And you blame Brown for running after the cop shoots him? Why? What would you do? Stand around and hope the cop who shot you (for no reason if you believe Brown) doesn't shoot you again?

And is it OK to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back? That's a justified use of deadly force, on an unarmed suspect?



Yes, Johnson has spoken to the media and said Brown was shot once in the car, fled, was shot again after being warned to stop, and then several times more after he went to his knees and put his hands up.[/QUOTE]
 
god this reminds me of the zimmerman mess

everyone jumping to conclusions without much to back anything up

just like the ferguson citizens, everyone needs to chill

there is an investigation proceeding

if it was my son shot, or my son accused of the shooting, i would want that investigation thorough

that takes time

this wont be glossed over one way or the other.....but can we get some real information before the cop is executed, or exonerated
 
You guys said the exact same thing about the Zimmerman trial and that never happened.

No " you guys " didn't say that at all.

I knew Zimmerman would be exonerated and didn't expect more than what happened after he was found innocent.

This is different and the response to a innocent verdict will be different.
 
Back
Top Bottom