@6:28/6:29 of video
#1 How’d he get from there to there?
#2 Because he ran, the police was still in the truck – cause he was like over the truck
{crosstalk}
#2 But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him
{crosstalk}
#2 Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him –
(there is dispute here whether he says "doubled back" or "coming back." )
#1. Oh, the police got his gun
#2 The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him
{crosstalk}
#2 Police fired shots – the next thing I know – the police was missing
#1 The Police?
#2 The Police shot him
#1 Police?
#2 The next thing I know … I’m thinking … the dude started running … (garbled something about “he took it from him)


This is terribly important because if Mike Brown had been shot, and he advanced towards the cop instead of surrendering, it would substantiate the narrative that the policeman shot in self-defense due to the fact that he was being threatened with severe bodily harm. This corroborates an account of the event given by a friend of Officer Darren Wilson:

Well, then Michael takes off and gets to be about 35 feet away. And, Darren’s first protocol is to pursue. So, he stands up and yells, “Freeze!” Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael taunts him… And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming. And, so he really thinks he was on something.”

It’s far too unlikely that these two accounts are similar accidentally, having been from such disparate sources. The apparent witness in the background conversation is speaking with detail about the tragic shooting, and in a manner that runs contrary to the widespread version. Those who watch the video need to judge for themselves if the witness sounds reliable (but he would seemingly have nothing to gain by telling such a story.)

I don't like the civil rights infraction laws or the hate crime laws, in some cases it almost could be considered as double jeopardy. Consider if the officer is found innocent of murder but then Holder and crew come in and try him on a civil rights beef simply because they were unhappy with the verdict. That came close to happening in the Zimmerman case.

And "Hate Crimes" make no sense to me whatsoever. If someone murders your wife what difference does it make if he murdered her because she was black or white or whatever, you want that sob prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as if racial intent somehow makes murder more heinous.

I don't like the civil rights infraction laws or the hate crime laws, in some cases it almost could be considered as double jeopardy. Consider if the officer is found innocent of murder but then Holder and crew come in and try him on a civil rights beef simply because they were unhappy with the verdict. That came close to happening in the Zimmerman case.

And "Hate Crimes" make no sense to me whatsoever. If someone murders your wife what difference does it make if he murdered her because she was black or white or whatever, you want that sob prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as if racial intent somehow makes murder more heinous.