Darren Wilson Named As Ferguson Cop Who Killed Mike Brown

    August 15, 2014
    Toni Matthews-El
    Comments are off for this post.

After a week of protest and controversy, the man thought to have caused it all by shooting unarmed Ferguson teen Mike Brown was finally identified Friday morning.

During a press conference, Chief Thomas Jackson informed the public that the officer who killed Brown is named Darren Wilson. According to Jackson, Wilson had served with the FPD for six years.

Perhaps in an effort to offer the freshly identified man the benefit of the doubt, it was noted that he’d not had any disciplinary actions taken against him in the past.

Since the Saturday shooting, Wilson has been on administrative leave. One imagines he’s quite possibly as far out of the way as possible considering the outrage.

The police department did not accept questions from reporters about the shooting or the manner in which they handled the resulting unrest.

Instead, the police handed out copies of the police report as to what they say happened on the day Brown was fatally shot.

According to the police, Brown was the suspect in a robbery. He was approached because he fit the description of the robber.

While this may explain the reason Brown would have been apprehended alive, it does not exactly explain how an unarmed suspect is shot multiple times by a Ferguson police officer.

As for Wilson, he has yet to step forward and give his side of the story, though he may be forced to do so after having been identified.

Those who criticized the shooting, the police treatment of protesters, and the harassment of journalists, will likely want their questions and concerns answered in the coming days.

This police report leaves much to be desired in the way of sensible answers.

Does The Fact That Mike Brown Was A Robbery Suspect Change Your Opinion As To Whether Or Not The Shooting Was Justified? Comment Below!

Image via YouTube

  • smithsson

    there are so many unknowns about the event that the essential elements of “innocent until proven guilty” seems to have gone out the window as mob reactions ranged from outrage, to rioting, to looting, to vandalism. About the only concrete guilt I can establish are these few mobs that run out and take advantage of the emotions running high and randomly and opportunistically committing crimes against stores. What I find disgusting is people on blog sites justifying the mobs actions by stating “material things matters less than people”. How people find it right to inflict damage to local businesses is particularly vile and repugnant. Search online and you will find looters with masks on breaking windows, burning stores, cars, at random, carrying away bottles of wine, or boxes of shoes and electronics.

    As for this article, there’s one section where someone asks the question why was the suspect shot multiple times. The answer lies in standard practice of police procedures. When a suspect conducts oneself in a threatening manner after repeated commands being ignored; the officers are trained to empty the clip until the threat is removed. period. cops are trained that the suspect can be very well under the influence of pcps, drugs, and can frequently be overwhelmingly powerful, unconstrained, and chemically induced not to feel pain. At close range, unless the cops have in their hands hollow point or a shot gun with sufficient knock down power, many times the bullets will simply pass right through the threat and may miss vital organs.

    Most officers and police offices are frequently understaffed, and under financial constraints, so helpful things like shooting practice to hit the target the first time is a luxury and not common. As everyone knows, bullets prices are sky high and some ammo are difficult to obtain. So because of the imminent threat, the officers are trained to shoot and keep shooting until the threat stops moving.

    It’s also a known statistic most people who shoot while under threat frequently miss. so just because you have 6-8 bullets doesn’t mean you can count on each bullet doing its work. Again, you make sure as many as possible hit the target so the threat is removed.

    now all of that being said:
    1) what were the threats? was it firmly established it is a threat?
    2) who are the witnesses? can we establish their credibility? were they there? did they see it? how clear could they see it? do they have a history of lying? are they predisposed to be biased towards or against the law?
    3) how much of the press did you read? were they from credible sources? how many sources ties back to first person interviews of people who live there, work there, were there during the scene occurance? How much of it was 2ndary or unconfirmed sources? How reliable are the sources?
    4) remember, this isn’t about what you feel. this is about what are the facts? and did you look into it enough? do the due diligence.