Posted on 12/15/2014 11:36:53 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Dorian Johnson is making headlines yet again. For those who aren’t familiar with Johnson, he was the key witness in the controversial Ferguson case. He actually witnessed the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown on Aug. 9. But, that’s not all. His claims also sparked the national protesting mantra, “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” since Johnson stated Brown had his hands up and asked Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson not to shoot him. However, details about Johnson’s claims later proved that the unarmed teen did not have his hands up. Now, another report has revealed more flaws in Johnson’s claims, reports Daily Mail.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
According to court documentation, Johnson’s statements to investigators was quite similar to the claims he presented to the grand jury. However, there were a number of inaccuracies. Back in August, Johnson was sure he’d seen Brown get shot in the back while attempting to flee.
“It definitely struck him in his back. It caused him to stop.”
He even went a step further with a theory to explain and justify his claims. He reportedly told detectives how he was sure Brown was shot in the back. “If it would’ve missed him, or if he wouldn’t have felt it, I believe he would’ve kept runnin’.”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at inquisitr.com ...
Dorian Johnson lied under oath... a simple contempt on that could put him in jail for 6 months... He has motive for telling the truth - finally.
Yup. Anthony Shahid was right there, at the beginning, like he was waiting.
Dorian Johnson will be rounded up the same day they arrest James Clapper.
The main reason MB was there 4 hours was that the County took over the investigation and had to get to the scene and process it. If the police ordered him moved, the “hands up” crowd would have accused them of doing it to destroy evidence.
Yep, Anthony, and MB’s cousin who has ahold of Dorian. All carefully orchestrated.
Of course he never saw him get shot in the back because the autopsy revealed that Brown WASN’T shot in the back.
Oh come on; this is no time to point out who lied to whom... /S
Won’t matter, they’re on a roll. After all, we didn’t quit when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.
Accordingto the Medical Examiner, 2 of those hours were spent waiting for the cops to secure the area. They told the ME team they couldn’t protect them from the mob
No need for b if you have a
Even an evil cop like those in Ferguson wouldn’t shoot an angel in his wings. /s
“Instead of incarcerating this lying POS whose BS created far more trouble than we’ll ever add up, the county of St. Louis hired him for.. something.”
His complexion?
Someone Has Seen the Future!
And it looks like this:
Any Street, Anywhere USA
Victim: Officer, officer! That man just stole my purse!
Officer: Good morning ma’m, or does that pronoun offend you. If so, please advise me of the correct pronoun I may use in order to not....
victim: Officer, you’re not listening to me! That man stole my purse.
officer: That gentleman across the street?
Victim: Yeah, that’s him.
officer: Okay, let me go talk to him.
victim: He’s a big guy, don’t you want some help?
Officer: Oh no, anything that might give the appearance of a show of force isn’t allowed.
Officer leaves to talk to the alleged suspect and then returns:
Officer: Is it a red purse with black trim and brass colored clasp with the initials MS on the side?
Victim: That’s it, my name is Mary Smith and those are my initials. That’s my purse.
Officer: I figured it was yours, he doesn’t look like the purse type. The problem is he doesn’t want to give it back.
Victim: Well, arrest him, he robbed me of that purse. He punched me, knocked me down and then took my purse. Look at this bruise on my arm, and I’m bleeding from my forehead.
Officer: I’m afraid I can’t do that. He said he wouldn’t allow me to arrest him. I can call the EMS folks though to treat you for your injuries. There will be a fee of course.
Victim: What??!! You have to arrest him. He committed a robbery and I’m the victim. I demand you arrest him.
Officer: I’m afraid I can’t do that. He said he would fight if I tried to arrest him and our new Rules Of Engagement don’t allow us to confront a hostile suspect.
Victim: Rules Of Engagement? What the hell is that?
Officer: Basically it means if the alleged suspect offers any resistance, or even says he will resist, our Rules Of Engagement say we shall not “engage”. It’s really quite simple and it makes our job much simpler. No more fights, no violence involved and everyone is much safer that way aren’t they?
Victim: But he robbed me and he’s standing right there, you mean you can’t do anything?
Officer: Oh, whether or not I could do something doesn’t matter. I’m not allowed to confront a possibly hostile suspect. Perhaps you could talk to him and see if he will come down to the precinct house and turn himself in.
Victim: That’s it? That’s all you can do?
Officer: Well, I can give you our website and you can make a report of this alleged crime. It’s a really neat website, designed by the same folks that did that Affordable Care Act site. And I’d be glad to give you the office phone numbers for Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Eric Holder.
Victim: Will they do anything?
Officer: Not really, they’re only interested if I do something.
Victim: Well did you at least get his name so I know who the bad guy is when I make this report?
Officer: No, he didn’t want to give me his name, and gosh all I can do is ask.
Victim: This is incredible. He’s just standing over there like he knows nothing will be done about this.
Officer: I know. Happens all the time now. Well, have a nice day and call any time, we’re here to help.
Victim: But officer....
Officer: You’ll have to excuse me, I have to go apologize to that gentlemen for disrupting his day.
Sounds very prophetic.
http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.