I wrote a previous diary for Daily Kos titled Indications of a Possible Coverup in Ferguson where I proved to at least my own satisfaction by examining the released testimony and the police radio transcripts two things, regarding the Michael Brown shooting. The first is that Darren Wilson lied under oath when he gave his Grand Jury testimony. The second is that the Ferguson Police Department tampered with evidence and it appears that the police radio transcripts on August 9, 2014 (the day Michael Brown was shot and killed) were edited. This diary never got a wide circulation so this is probably the reason that most people do not know of these things.
Now we have yet another shooting of an 18 year old teen named Antonio Martin from a neighboring township adjacent to Ferguson in Berkley, MO.
Right from the very beginning there are some facts about this shooting that do not appear to be on the level as far as the official police report. Below the fold is a statement made by police several hours after the shooting.
The St. Louis County Police Department is conducting an investigation into a shooting death involving a Berkeley, Missouri police officer. At approximately 11:15 PM on December 23, 2014, a police officer with the City of Berkeley was conducting a routine business check at the Mobile Gas Station located at 6800 N. Hanley when he observed two male subjects on the side of the building. The Berkeley Police Officer exited his vehicle and approached the subjects when one of the men pulled a handgun and pointed it at the officer. Fearing for his life, the Berkeley Officer fired several shots, striking the subject, fatally wounding him. The second subject fled the scene.
The Berkeley Police Department requested the St. Louis County Police Department’s Crimes Against Persons Unit to handle the investigation. St. Louis County Police Detectives have recovered the deceased subject’s handgun at the scene.
At this time, we cannot confirm the identity of the deceased subject. The investigation is on-going and further details will be provided as the investigation proceeds.
The first fact that does not correlate is the portion of the statement where it was announced that the officer was conducting a routine business check at the location where the shooting occurred. CNN is reporting that the officer responded to a theft charge and that is why he was at the station.
Also, the video of the shooting released to CNN gets chopped off right as Martin was raising his hand and his hand is in the perfect position for viewers of the video to come away believing that he meant to shoot the cop and very well could have had a gun in his hand. The video was chopped at that point because this is the way it was given to the media and that is where it stopped. There is reason to believe that Martin was merely raising his hands in response to the officer’s command. From the angle of the video it is difficult to tell if he was raising only one or both hands. It looked as if Martin was carrying something white and it almost appeared as it fell to the ground as he raised his right hand. Closer examination reveals that the officer was shining a bright flashlight on Martin at the area around his stomach.
There is yet another problem with that video as reported by CNN. It starts quite a bit later in time than the actual video released by the police. That particular editing is probably more the fault of CNN and not the police. Below is the full video of what CNN reported and it is quite telling if you examine it closely. It cuts off in the same place as the video reported on by CNN but it does start earlier.
https://www.youtube.com/...
In the beginning you see two men standing out in front of the convenience store just to the right of the front door of the establishment. These are the same two men that the officer will eventually stop to question later on in the video. Notice they are standing outside the store just chatting and not seemingly very anxious as if they might had been if they had just done some shop lifting inside the store. You would think they would be in more of a hurry to vacate the premises if that were the case. Because they are both on foot you would think this is a store close by their homes that they quite often walk to. Most likely, both men are well known customers of the store and not likely to do much shoplifting at that location.
At the top right of the screen you will notice two women with a baby carriage rolling through the parking lot going in the general direction of where a cop car pulls into the store parking lot. It appears the two men have finished their conversation and they decide to leave. The man with the white pants walks behind a car parked in front of the store and meets up with the two women coming into view at the top of the screen pushing a baby carriage. It likewise appears the man in the white pants was actually standing in front of the store waiting on these two women to arrive before leaving.
The man in the dark pants who I initially assumed to be Martin leaves in the same general direction but he walks in front of the car parked in the front of the convenience store. I am left with a question about this because of the following post by one of the witnesses on the scene.
Chalang Sharif
I had trouble embedding this photo tweet at a size easy to see so the only way I know to get to the list is to click on the above link and when a webpage opens that shows a series of photos at the top, click on any one of the photos and then start using the left/right scroll arrows until you see one photo in the group by Chalang Sharif that lists what is known about this shooting.
This says Martin was with his mother and girlfriend when he was shot. It seems apparent from the storefront video that the man who raised his arm as if pointing a weapon was the man in the darker pants and it seems apparent that the man in the white pants was with the two women. We never see a picture of Martin lying on the ground except where he is covered up by a yellow tarp so it is difficult to tell the color of his pants.
It may be that the man who posted this photo list was mistaken about this being Martin’s wife and mother or it may just be that they too knew the man in the white pants and stopped to talk to him. This possibility seems low since the man in the dark pants clearly was set to leave the area and did not appear to be waiting on the two women. Further, it was clear that it was the man in the white pants who was waiting on the two women as they came into the scene of the surveillance camera from the top right of the screen.
Notice also that the man in the white pants appears to be carrying a bag of items he purchased in the store. The man in the dark pants does not seem to be carrying anything but he does appear to have a type of bag that is secured to the front side of his person that he carries items in.
The cop stops his car near the end of the store and not really in front of it. The man in white pants is motioned to come over to the car by the officer. The man in the dark pants may or may not see the cop motioning to his friend and you can see that he turns left and walks out of the frame of the video. You next see the officer using his flash light to shine it in the man’s direction as he uses it to motion to him to also come over to the car.
The man in dark pants stops in front of the police car and the man in white pants moves away from the side of the car and joins the other man more toward the front of the car. The officer moves forward slightly but he is still on the driver side of his vehicle. The man in dark pants is then seen backing up away and then turns as if to leave. He walks a few steps and then turns back around and he is seen raising what originally appeared to me to be his right hand but closer examination reveals that it is his left hand.
Something white in color that he appears to be carrying looks as if it dropped to the ground as he raised his hand. Closer examination reveals that he was not actually carrying anything in his hand. The cop was shining a bright light at the man’s frontal pouch and abruptly moved the light away making it appear as though he was carrying a white item that he dropped to the ground. It was at this point that we saw him raise his arm as if to point a weapon at the officer. It appears the cop reacted by doing something to free his primary hand that he uses to both shine his flashlight and to draw and fire his weapon.
The two women who met up with the man in white pants on the driver’s side of the police vehicle stopped only briefly before proceeding to walk behind the police vehicle as they moved along the passenger side of the vehicle toward the front of the car and moved out of the field of view of the surveillance camera. It may be that the officer ordered them to move on.
There are reports from witnesses at the scene that Martin did not have a weapon and it was placed at the scene 2 to 3 hours after the shooting. There are some very interesting photos taken by people who later arrived at the scene that are viewable by going to #AntonioMartin. The article makes a statement by the author which says he was told that the orange cone next to the police vehicle marks the location of the weapon and it is clear to see that no weapon is shown at that point unless it is behind the cone looking from that vantage point. That photo too can be viewed at #AntonioMartin.
From every indication it appears that the rest of the store front video that we never got to see has much more to tell us. Further, the police reported that there is other video of the shooting that they are not releasing out of respect for the family. While I appreciate their sensitivity for the family, I think the family and justice would be better served by promptly releasing the other video footage before there is time to be accused of manipulating it. The family is already well aware that Martin was gunned down and killed so the ultimate shock to their senses has already occurred.
The Police Chief of Berkley reported that the precinct only has a total of 3 body cams. It was reported in a police press conference that the officer who shot Martin had forgotten his body cam at the precinct and it was brought to him mid-shift but he forgot to clip it on. What is clear is that other officers showed up to the scene wearing their body cameras at waist level. The Police Chief stated that these cameras are new and the officers have not been thoroughly trained on how to best wear them but stated that training is ongoing and expected to be completed within a month.
I want to give the Police Chief the benefit of the doubt here; but a month – to learn how to wear and point a camera? And we are expected to swallow once again that the dashboard camera on the police vehicle was either turned off or not working. Here we have an instance where a seemingly innocent policeman who was only doing his job and who could be so easily exonerated by either the camera outfitted inside his vehicle or the one outfitted on his person but the one in the car does not seem to work while the body cam was forgotten and not in use? Should we couple all these incredible coincidences with the fact that a Grand Jury might ultimately indict this officer with the possibility of murder; that would be the cruelest twist of fate yet. How could one single officer have such a thoroughly rotten day? To escape being shot only to be tried for murder because of a non-working camera that had a backup that was not in use has to be the ultimate tale of bad luck.
The Police Chief attempted ferociously in his interview to convince us that his precinct is nothing like Ferguson because of the better match up of black officers to the percentage of black citizens in his community but based on all evidence available it would seem that matchup is not necessarily a prerequisite when it comes to cops shooting a citizen. The fact that other officers showed up to the scene wearing body cameras at their waist and the fact they need yet another month of training seems to signal the month may not necessarily be for training purposes but rather there seems to be a protest within the ranks of the Berkley and St. Louis precincts that may take a month or more to iron out to get officers to accept the new body cam policy.
Besides the conflict of what CNN is reporting and what the official police statement released within hours of the shooting has to say, the police statement has other areas of conflict. The statement says the officer observed two male suspects on the side of the building. The video clearly shows the men did not start out on the side of the building and were clearly in front of the store as the officer pulled into the parking lot. I am going to have to say that the police report is more correct than CNN when it comes to the reason the cop pulled into that store based on the fact that at least one of the two men was carrying a bag of items purchased from the store and based on the fact they seemed in no big hurry to vacate the premises. Though the men did start from in front of the store, they both did walk toward the side of the store but that is not where they were when the officer first encountered them.
Whether or not the second subject fled from the scene is debatable since the camera video was cut off too early to tell but I would almost bet that part of the story is correct. People have a tendency not to stand in one spot out in the open when the shooting starts.
The police statement ends by saying that St. Louis County police officers called to the scene recovered the deceased subject’s handgun at the scene. Witnesses at the scene adamantly insist that this is not the case. They point to photos taken where the gun did not appear to be lying on the ground and then suddenly it miraculously appeared. They are suspicious of police because they cordoned off the area and made them stand very far back so they could not tell what was going on.
This suspicion was soon parlayed into a belief that evidence was being tampered with and police were attempting to keep onlookers from seeing what they were up to.
It all is starting to look very bad for the Berkley officer that shot Antonio Martin and I think I have helped to make a fairly good case here to help drive at least a couple of nails into the officer’s coffin. The only problem is that I think he is innocent and after writing much of this diary I got supporting evidence of that fact.
I have been objective as I could possibly be in pointing out the facts. I started this article by informing the reader that I wrote another diary in which I also feel I was totally objective in uncovering some disturbing facts in the Michael Brown shooting that makes Darren Wilson appear to be guilty of perjury and possibly indict the entire Ferguson police department for conspiracy to alter and cover up evidence in a criminal felony investigation. So given my credentials, I feel it would be difficult for anyone to say that I am biased in this case and not biased in the Michael Brown case.
The reason that I make this bold statement that the officer in this shooting is innocent and that events occurred exactly as he stated is that immediately, after he abruptly took his flashlight beam off the man in the dark pants, that man raised his hand up to a level that made it appear as if he was holding a gun that he intended to shoot. During his interview the Police Chief stated that the officer fell backward and went to the ground but still managed to get off three shots.
Once again, this part of the store surveillance video is cut off and when the film stops we see the officer still on his feet. The officer was shining his flashlight at the front pouch of the man in dark pants. He suddenly removed the light as if in response to the action the man was taking when he raised his arm which seemed to indicate he actually did have a gun. As the officer would most likely be holding his flashlight with the same hand he uses to draw and shoot his weapon, it would make sense that he would have to drop the flashlight very quickly or move it to his other hand if he saw the man pull a weapon out from his bag.
As far as the belief by onlookers that there was no weapon lying on the ground, that is still a troubling aspect of this case that may in the end prove to be the undoing of all I have surmised here. The only response I can offer regarding this is that it was dark, the pistol was dark, and maybe if was simply difficult to see. There is an evidence marker next to the weapon with the number 5 on it when we finally get to see the weapon in one of the #AntonioMartin photos and it is believed by some that the evidence marker replaces the cone in front of the officer’s vehicle. I saw no absolute proof that this was the case and in fact, the weapon appears much closer to the curb than does cone alongside the police vehicle.
Witnesses on the scene also reported that Martin was running away from the shooting contrary to what the officer himself reported. We do not, however, know that this is a factual statement. He did not appear to run away from the scene in the portion of the video we were privileged to see but what he did after that particular video was cut off still remains a mystery.
Another troubling aspect of this case is that onlookers state that a call for riot control was put in by police but there was never a call for an ambulance. They state that Martin did not die for 30 minutes after he was initially shot and might have survived had he received prompt medical care.
We saw in the case of Michael Brown that the ambulance was not called for some time either. He was believed to be dead and the medical examiner was first called for an official proclamation. Once his death was officially determined, the police called for an ambulance for the purpose of removing his body. I believe this may be a similar case and the people saying Martin was still alive were simply mistaken.
One major difference here, however, that is very disturbing is that onlookers reported that Martin’s body was thrown into the back of an SUV and not treated very respectfully either. It was also stated that some of the police at the scene pointed to the enraged crowd and laughed and made jokes.
Aside from all the rudeness and crudeness by officers dispatched to the scene in riot gear, I feel the bigger problem in all of this is the apparent refusal of officers to turn on their vehicle cameras or to properly wear their body cameras. The lack of what would be necessary to exonerate this officer may well end up being the very thing that will ultimately lead to his conviction. Until police learn to stop fighting against the inevitable, these kinds of situations will erupt time and time again. If they are not willing to take a chance that what shows up in a video attached to their person or to their vehicle is ultimately a good thing for everybody involved, then they simply need to find a new line of work.
It is quite fortunate for the officer in this shooting that Buzzfeed did manage to secure other video footage of the incident than what CNN had broadcast and that the New York Times also linked to. There are two videos and neither gives a completely clear picture of what exactly happens but one comes pretty close. That video is presented directly below.
https://www.youtube.com/...
You can see that much of what occurs just after the shooting is not simply the officer taking a few steps back and falling down. He was back peddling at full speed when he fell to the ground half way across the parking lot and then got up and continued to run away from the scene. It seemed obvious that he was not at all sure if the shots he fired had neutralized the threat. This video helps to more than exonerate the officer and tends to indicate that Martin actually did pull a weapon out of his bag and point it at the officer. His reaction was one of a person that clearly felt their life was endangered as his “fight or flight” senses appeared to kick in.
Although I am now more on the officer’s side in this circumstance than I was when I initially started looking into this case, the thought has occurred to me that the officer might have been mistaken about Martin pulling a gun on him. Sources have said that the officer was not sure if Martin actually fired his weapon. But even if he was mistaken, from all appearances he was legitimately mistaken. I just hope that no one from law enforcement felt it was necessary to plant a weapon at the scene as an extra assurance that the officer would not be held liable. From everything I can see regarding this case, such an action simply would not be necessary and it would end up doing more harm than good.
The second video was from yet another surveillance camera that has most of the action taking place out of the frame of the camera. Here you can clearly see some waving around of the officer’s flashlight followed by the man in white pants running away from the scene into the store.
https://www.youtube.com/...
Maybe this event will be a lesson to officers nationwide that the camera can more times than not be your friend as long as you are conducting yourself in a manner befitting the nature of the job. It should be noted here that Buzzfeed reported just as did CNN that the officer was responding to a shoplifting call so it makes it odd that the official police statement would not also say this. This is probably important for those that might next want to make claims of police profiling.