NY Times omits key information in the Michael Brown shooting report account

By 13 Comments 1,435 views

ny times lies

Yesterday the NY Times, which lately has been a been on a veracity-challenged course, posted an report on the Michael Brown shooting that was as significant for what it left out as for what it contained. You will remember that David Landler authored a hit piece on George Bush not long ago in which he asserted that George Bush failed to assemble a coalition for the Iraq War. Then not ago C.J. Chivers again slammed Bush with another bald faced lie.

They’ve done it again. Michael Schmidt, Matt Apuzzo and Julie Bosman report on the government’s investigation of the Michael Brown shooting. It contains important information:

The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.

The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

Tests put Michael Brown at least partly in the police vehicle.

The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown’s blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson’s uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.

They continue:

This is the first public account of Officer Wilson’s testimony to investigators, but it does not explain why, after he emerged from his vehicle, he fired at Mr. Brown multiple times. It contradicts some witness accounts, and it will not calm those who have been demanding to know why an unarmed man was shot a total of six times. Mr. Brown’s death continues to fuel anger and sometimes-violent protests.

Maybe because the information hasn’t been released yet? The reporters relate some of the accounts of the “eyewitnesses.” One of the, Tiffany Mitchell, says:

“Michael was pulling off and the cop was trying to pull him in.”

Don’t cops always try to pull suspects on top of the them while they’re sitting in the driver’s seat of a police cruiser?

The Times article then goes on to accord much time and credence to another witness- one Dorian Johnson.

However, Mr. Johnson’s description of the scuffle is detailed and specific, and directly contradicts what Officer Wilson has told the authorities.

Mr. Johnson has said that Officer Wilson was the aggressor, backing up his vehicle and opening the door, which hit Mr. Johnson and Mr. Brown and then bounced back.

“He just reached his arm out the window and grabbed my friend around his neck, and he was trying to choke my friend,” Mr. Johnson told reporters after the shooting. “He was trying to get away, and the officer then reached out and grabbed his arm to pull him inside the car.”

Right. Because cops routinely pull much larger suspects on top of themselves into their cruiser on the driver’s seat. It’s the normal mode of securing a prisoner. Sure.

The Brown family attorney, Benjamin Crump:

“What the police say is not to be taken as gospel,”

Which leads me to the heart of this botched story. Crump asserts that we must not accept the police version of the event as gospel, but what about the “star” witness? The Times’ reporters say absolutely nothing about Dorian Johnson.

Dorian Johnson is a liar.

Eyewitness Johnson claimed that Michael Brown was shot in the back:

Brown and Johnson took off running together. There were three cars lined up along the side of the street. Johnson says he ducked behind the first car, whose two passengers were screaming. Crouching down a bit, he watched Brown run past.

“Keep running, bro!,” he said Brown yelled. Then Brown yelled it a second time. Those would be the last words Johnson’s friend, “Big Mike,” would ever say to him.

Brown made it past the third car. Then, “blam!” the officer took his second shot, striking Brown in the back. At that point, Johnson says Brown stopped, turned with his hands up and said “I don’t have a gun, stop shooting!”

Johnson denied being with Brown in the store at the time of the theft, but later recanted:

The friend who was with Michael Brown when he was shot and killed by a police officer near St. Louis over the weekend is reportedly confirming that he and Brown had taken part in the theft of cigars from a convenience store that day.

That word comes from the attorney for Dorian Johnson, speaking to MSNBC. Police in Ferguson had earlier announced that Brown was suspected of taking cigars from the convenience store in what was described as a “strong-arm robbery.”

It also turns out that Johnson has an outstanding warrant for a theft and false police report in 2011:

During the summer after his first semester at Lincoln, Johnson was charged with a misdemeanor after giving police a false first name after he was arrested on suspicion of theft. He later pleaded guilty.

He was accused of stealing a package containing a backpack belonging to someone else from an apartment complex. When he was arrested in that case, he identified himself as Derrick Johnson and said he was 16.

He is wanted for failing to appear in Jefferson City municipal court to answer to the theft charge, court officials said.

An attorney who is a close friend of mine said Johnson’s testimony would be entirely useless to a grand jury given his history.

For some reason, the NY Times saw fit to omit the less palatable side of the “star” eyewitness. Johnson’s testimony may be “detailed and specific” and “directly contradict” what Officer Wilson has said but Johnson is a liar. That’s an important thing for readers to know.

It is consistent with the increasing tendency of the NY Times to act less like as a proper news source and more like a hopelessly biased tabloid.

We’ll revisit the Times again real soon.

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

13 Responses to “NY Times omits key information in the Michael Brown shooting report account”

  1. 1

    Nanny G

    Dorian Johnson’s account leaves out how his own bracelet, clearly seen in the store footage, ends up on the ground right at the door of Officer Wilson’s vehicle.
    His testimony about Michael Brown being hit in the back flies in the face of forensic evidence.
    And he’s lied so often he would be destroyed on the stand.
    If you watch a lot of the early footage covering the shooting aftermath you actually see Dorian Johnson spreading his version of events, even raising his hands to show supposed eyewitnesses what to say.

    But hey, the NYTimes is all about ”the narrative,” not about the facts.

  2. 2


    The Ny Times?

    The Ny Times isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. And it’s opinion is worth even less than that. Also keep in mind that many of the protestors that waste time trying to keep this dead thug story alive couldn’t read a newspaper if their life depended on it.

    Enough is enough. It’s time to let this dead thug story die.

  3. 3


    The defense attornies in this case are in grave danger of being “influenced” by the DOJ and other nefarious leftist groups. These groups don’t want to see another Zimmerman get away from their “justice”.

  4. 4


    The two Wal-Marts nearest Furgeson have pulled all their ammo off the shelves…..just in case.
    Seems like, whether the NYTimes likes it or now, the writing is on the wall.

  5. 6


    “He just reached his arm out the window and grabbed my friend around his neck, and he was trying to choke my friend,” Mr. Johnson told reporters after the shooting. “He was trying to get away, and the officer then reached out and grabbed his arm to pull him inside the car.”

    Wilson, seated in a car, decided it would be a wise idea to grab a 300 lb., 6’4″ youth around the neck? Really?

    For some reason, the NY Times saw fit to omit the less palatable side of the “star” eyewitness. Johnson’s testimony may be “detailed and specific” and “directly contradict” what Officer Wilson has said but Johnson is a liar. That’s an important thing for readers to know.

    This kind of ideological irresponsibility gets people killed. It could very well be that the grand jury does not recommend charges for Wilson, based on their evidence. If that happens, how will those (prone to violence already) who believe the NYT assessment (because it fits nicely into their mindset of racist intent) reconcille the discrepancy? We can rest assured they will not doubt the NYT account (as mentioned before, it only reinforces what they already want to believe) and without a doubt will employ violence to express their discontent.


    What’s the difference, really? It was a racist killing pure and simple by a Police force which is out of control across the country.

    What’s the difference? Really? Gosh, This one, the only difference is the difference between fact and lie, right and wrong. It was either a “racist killing pure and simple” or a justified shooting of a rampaging brute. There is quite a bit of difference between the two, particularly when the only evidence that supports the accusation you set forth is based on, thus far, lies.

  6. 7


    @This+one: We live in a country of laws!! You are welcome to provide evidence to support you racist position. Prove that the Police force was “out of control”!! Prove that it was a racist killing!! Otherwise your just blowing smoke!!

  7. 9


    @Common+Sense: Tis+None’s got nothing. He merely “feeels” that the cop was racist; he “believes” the shooting was an execution. Apparently, he’s never been around an aggressive young male with zero impulse control.

  8. 10


    Sadly, the real victim in all of this, when the dust finally settles, is Ofc. Wilson. His career is over, he can’t live anywhere near St. Louis and his reputation as an honest hard working police officer is forever tainted. If he’s lucky, he may be able to get a law enforcement job somewhere vary far from his present home, with a small agency who can understand what he has been through, and get on with his life. But he will be gun-shy forever about defending himself, opening up the opportunity for bad guys to really do him damage. A real shame for a guy who was just doing a job he probably loved, and by all accounts was pretty good at. Not enough people are thinking about that, so busy they are making him out to be a racist demon.

    Another offshoot of this whole situation nobody is thinking about… how many cops are going to walk away from the job, never to return, knowing if the occasion arises and they have to defend themselves with deadly force, good shoot or bad, their career is essentially over? Talented, well rounded good cops, in it for the right reasons, bailing out. I know some guys doing exactly that, retiring early and taking a financial hit just to get out. How many young people will disregard law enforcement as a career, knowing they will not get any support from their agencies, nor the public, should they get drug into a bad situation not of their making? A lot of talented, strong hard working people, thinking about law enforcement with the right intentions, choosing another option; leaving the openings to what may be less desirable candidates who might become what people fear as cops; predators, bullies and even criminals, carrying badges and guns and getting paid to be what so many fear. All because anarchy was allowed to rein, and continues to rein in the St. Louis area. The race baiters getting support from the president and attorney general demonstrate just how little regard a large segment of society (and the executive branch of the government) have for the rule of law, the Constitution (remember that innocent until proven guilty thing we used to have here?) and respect for those who have the unsavory job of protecting the people from themselves and others.

  9. 11



    Who the hell would want to go into law enforcement now? Political correctness Cultural Marxism has now become the norm. If a cop defends himself, and shoots someone, he is automatically judged to be in the wrong and I doubt there are many IA departments that would have his back.

    Had I been a Ferguson police officer, I would have resigned after the first week of rioting/looting. Let the people of Ferguson do without the police for a couple of months and see how they like real anarchy. Same with St. Louis. Let the cops there bar anyone from Ferguson who has been seen on those videos rioting and make them stay in Ferguson WITHOUT police protection.

    Ferguson was once a nice, bi-racial town of middle class blue collar workers. Now look at it. If those people want anarchy, I say let them have it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *