Family friend tells WaPo: Yes, Darren Wilson did suffer an eye socket fracture

posted at 2:01 pm on August 22, 2014 by Allahpundit

Jim Hoft and Fox News say he did, CNN says he didn’t, and now here’s WaPo saying yep, he did.

Your move, New York Times.

The signs of easing tensions came as a family friend of the officer who fatally shot Brown came forward to offer a version of the incident with new details, saying that the officer suffered a fracture to his eye socket in a scuffle with the unarmed teenager before opening fire.

Hospital X-rays of the injury have been taken and will be shared with a grand jury that is weighing evidence to determine whether Officer Darren Wilson should be charged in the shooting, said the friend, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of fear of threats. The friend has been in contact with Wilson’s family members…

In his account to close confidants, Wilson has repeatedly said he thought Brown was acting erratically when they had an altercation on a street in a garden apartment complex in Ferguson. He said that Brown was coming at him when he fired the fatal shots.

“Darren was adamant that he believed Michael Brown had some drugs in his system,” the friend said.

The DA’s office says Wilson will be invited to appear before the grand jury but they admit that they haven’t interviewed him. Whether that’s because Wilson doesn’t want to talk to them (yet) or because they feel they don’t need to talk to him before seeking an indictment is unclear.

Over at NRO, Charles Cooke wonders: What if we’ve already seen all of the relevant prosecution evidence in the Brown shooting? Is there any way that the D.A. gets a conviction here? According to the Times, “many” witnesses agree that there was a struggle between Brown and Wilson while Wilson was still in his squad car. They also agree that Wilson’s gun discharged before he got out, that Brown started running, that Wilson fired at him while Brown’s back was to him, and that Brown finally stopped and turned to face him. They disagree on what happened after that. Some say Brown advanced towards Wilson, others say he stayed put. Maybe the state can do something with forensics to show whether Brown was moving forward when he was hit, but if not, it’ll be a test of credibility between the prosecution’s witnesses and the defense’s. And it’s a heavy lift to get from there to “beyond a reasonable doubt,” especially if Wilson has medical records showing that Brown had already hit him hard enough to break bone. Once you produce some evidence to show justifiable homicide, the burden falls on the prosecution to disprove it. Unless the jury decides that there’s simply no plausible scenario in which an armed man reasonably needs to use lethal force to repel an attack from a man who’s unarmed, the D.A. will have trouble.

Makes me wonder if maybe the state will zero in on Wilson shooting at Brown’s back while he was fleeing and try to get some sort of conviction out of that. That would be awfully tricky — it would be bizarre for Wilson to be acquitted of murder on self-defense grounds but convicted on attempted murder or negligence grounds for the shots he fired just moments before the fatal shots. If the first shots at Brown’s back were criminal, didn’t Brown then have a self-defense right of his own to try to disarm Wilson? If he was acting in his own self-defense, how can Wilson claim self-defense on the shots that ended up killing Brown?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I can’t see a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, but depending on the witnesses, possibly an indictment.

talkingpoints on August 22, 2014 at 6:47 PM

If Brown’s prints are on the gun.

If the punch to the face sent Wilson to the hospital for treatment.

If all the shots were to the front,

If they allow the sound from that one man who is talking over the video and says to a friend… Brown rushed the policeman… is evidence.

There will be NO INDICTMENT.

It would be total politics not law.

That guy who is telling what happened before any of the politics, just telling a friend what he just saw… he says Brown rushed the officer even after he had been shot…

petunia on August 22, 2014 at 10:05 PM

Just heard on Fox at 9:30 pm tonite that the Ferguson Police Dept has evidence that Michael Brown did touch Officer Darren Wilson’s gun. Sounds like they got the Gentle Giant’s fingerprints on the gun or the holster. This is the first time I have heard this confirmed.

gracie on August 22, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Fuhrman said something interesting last night on one of the Fox shows, he said that in the autopsy report he noticed a cut on one of Brown’s fingertips. He thought it might be from the slide on the officer’s gun.

That means it could be Brown’s blood on the weapon.

slickwillie2001 on August 22, 2014 at 10:27 PM

slickwillie2001 on August 22, 2014 at 10:27 PM

Whoa! I bet Wilson’s got Brown’s DNA all over his shirt and pants and gun. I heard the cops have all the clothes…Brown’s and Wilson’s. Now we wait for the tox…marijuana levels and whateva!

gracie on August 22, 2014 at 10:49 PM

Pravda thinks the American media is propaganda..

redyoshii on August 23, 2014 at 2:58 AM

WELL, ALLAHPUNDIT.

All I can say is: You’ve disgraced yourself as badly as Jay Nixon and Ron Johnson, and Al Sharpi Sharpton and Eric Holder and Obama in this sorry saga!!!

You don’t do a basic search for current news reports before jumping in to opine that Wilson was guilty; then, when confronted with your own EGREGIOUS and lazy ignorance of what happened to Officer Wilson (the Reuters report on the injury) you go to that bastion of news virtually guaranteed to get it wrong, CNN, for cover on the injury!

It’s all been pretty PATHETIC, Allahpundit. Now that you are being forced to eat your own smelly shorts, are you finally waking up to the FACTS HERE?!

Darren Wilson, a good cop, made a good faith effort to arrest a criminal, the.thug assaulted him, tried to take his gun, then tried to attack the officer again, so that officer shot him. The definition of a GOOD SHOOT.

mountainaires on August 23, 2014 at 7:10 AM

Okay, folks, let me explain to you what happened. . . . .

After Officer Wilson realized that he couldn’t haul the struggling child Michael Brown though the patrol car window, he decided to just take his gun out and shoot Brown while he had hold of his neck. However, in taking his gun out it misfired before he could get it trained on Brown. . .and consequently, the child escaped the clutches of the racist monster Wilson and was running for his life.

At this point the racist monster Wilson with ice-cold blood decided to try out some new bullets the racist Ferguson police department had got from the Loonton ammunition subsidy of Koch industries. . . .horrible, deadly, and frightening bullets that go by the name of “180B ammo”. . . “180″ for the ability they have to overtake a fleeing child and then make a 180 degree turn to strike the child in the front, so it makes it look like the child was charging a police officer, instead of fleeing. The “B” is for their ability to be black seeking . . . just like their are heat seeking missiles, the racist monster Wilson used Black seeking bullets. That’s how the while policeman could use 180 degree bullets without worrying that they would come back and get him. As for that orbital blow-out fracture. . .Wilson actually got that from his supervisor, who was upset that he used too many “180B” bullets in the incident. . . .

Obviously, the only way to make things right is to give Jesse Jackson and Al Sharptons racial reconciliation projects several tens of millions of dollars, and provide free Swisher Sweets cigarillos to the impoverish youth in minority neighborhoods. . . .and to do away with Jay Walking Laws. . . .

Yeah, okay, but my theory is just as good as some of the others I’ve heard. . .

Narniaman on August 23, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Where are the cell-video’s to PROVE that Brown was executed?
Had the WH failed to pass out Obama-phones in Ferguson?

Another Drew on August 23, 2014 at 2:34 PM

“many” witnesses agree that there was a struggle between Brown and Wilson while Wilson was still in his squad car. They also agree that Wilson’s gun discharged before he got out,

It’s also rumored that Brown has a cut injury on the web of his hand between the finger and thumb, something you typically get from the slid of a semi-auto cycle when fired. This would indicate Brown in fact had his hand on the gun when it fired. An officer NEVER un-holsters his weapon in a patrol car because you just can’t maneuver safely or more important effectively when constricted inside a car. EVERYTHING ELSE after that sentence is on Michel Brown. END OF STORY!

Pole-Cat on August 23, 2014 at 5:07 PM

As for this “unarmed man” BS. When you are armed and everyone knows you are armed (you’re a cop) logic dictates that only another armed person would consider taking you on. The only logical conclusion for you is “he must be armed as well”. There is no other logical explanation. Way too many cops are killed by “an unarmed man”.

Pole-Cat on August 23, 2014 at 5:25 PM

I frankly don’t find it credible to claim that Wilson shot at Brown as he was fleeing. There seems very little evidence to support it, and very little reason to find these eyewitnesses to be all that credible.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 22, 2014 at 4:40 PM

The one thing that might help is to know how many rounds were fired from his service weapon. If it’s more than 7, then it is very likely he fired at a retreating Brown. That doesn’t make the case against Wilson, but it answers that particular question.

GWB on August 22, 2014 at 5:11 PM

I figure the most likely scenario is that the gun discharged while Brown was struggling with Wilson in the car, that Brown reacted by running away, that Wilson got out of the car and told him to freeze, and that Brown then turned around and charged him.

Bystanders hear a gunshot, see Brown running, and jump to the natural conclusion that Wilson was shooting at his back, not realizing that Brown ran as a reaction to the gun going off in the struggle.

That is, the eyewitnesses weren’t necessarily lying, they just misinterpreted the order of events.

It’s even possible that Brown raised his hands at one point or another, as some witnesses have claimed. But if he did, then he lowered them again when he charged, based on the bullets that struck his arms from the front.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 23, 2014 at 6:29 PM

If the first shots at Brown’s back were criminal, didn’t Brown then have a self-defense right of his own to try to disarm Wilson? If he was acting in his own self-defense, how can Wilson claim self-defense on the shots that ended up killing Brown?

Let me try to understand. I’m unarmed standing next to a cop car. I slug the cop in the face and reach for his gun and it goes off. I run away. I hear shots behind me, and I TURN AND HEAD BACK to defend myself????? Wouldn’t I try running farther away and zig zag to make a harder target to hit?

Maybe Brown thought “I popped him pretty good, he can’t see what he’s doing”, and decided to go back and finish pummeling the cop?

olesparkie on August 24, 2014 at 6:03 PM

olesparkie on August 24, 2014 at 6:03 PM

.
That’s my take as well, but I’m a “racist” so it doesn’t count.

listens2glenn on August 25, 2014 at 4:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4