Darren Wilson did NOT know about the convenience store robbery when he confronted Michael Brown on the streets of Ferguson. Update!

Courtesy of the Daily Mail:  

In Wilson's now very public account of his encounter with Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson on August 9 he has claimed that he asked Brown and Wilson to move to the sidewalk rather than walk in the street. 

When they walked on, Wilson has repeatedly stated, he realized they matched the description of two suspects wanted in connection with the robbery of nearby Ferguson Market. A youth matching Brown's description had stolen a box of Swishers cigarillos. 

It was this realization, he stated, that caused him to reverse his vehicle and sparked the car-side confrontation that left Brown dead on the street with six bullets in his body. 

But the sworn testimony of Wilson's squad supervisor directly contradicts this account. 

Wilson's supervisor was the first officer to speak with the 28-year-old cop following the shooting. The men spoke before St Louis County Police had even been notified of the incident and before the medical examiner or investigating officers had arrived on the scene. 

At that time, the supervisor said:'He [Wilson] did not know anything about the stealing call.' 

When pressed by the attorney questioning him, the officer reiterated that Wilson, 'did not know anything'. 

Asked, 'He told you he didn't know about there being a stealing at Ferguson Market?' 

The officer responded, 'Correct.' 

Now this is a key fact because, number one it proves that Wilson was not responding to a person that he knew to be violent, and number two it proves that Wilson lied to the Grand Jury. 

And the part that I found particularly enlightening was that in fact Wilson could NOT have known about the robbery because the call came in AFTER the shooting had already taken place.

(Update: Okay somebody asked me how I know that the robbery call came in after the shooting. In point of fact I described that poorly. What I meant to say was that it was unlikely that other officers would be looking out for Brown as the responding officer only received the call after 11:54, which is immediately after the robbery took place. He then had to drive to the convenience, conduct his interview (At which time he received a more detailed description.) Brown was shot dead at 12:01 which means that quite literally this officer was probably in the process of conducting his investigation.  And as this was a low priority, unarmed, snatch and grab it is very unlikely that he called for assistance or put out an APB.)

And remember 15 witnesses said that Michael Brown was running away when Wilson started firing at him, and 16 said he had his hands up before the last bullets were fired.

I think at this point the Justice Department has no choice but to launch their own investigation.

This whole thing stinks like crazy.

Republicans pass bill that would bar scientists from providing testimony to the EPA on their own research. But don't worry, it's still okay for corporations to have THEIR "experts" provide input.

Courtesy of Salon:  

H.R. 1422, which passed 229-191, would shake up the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board, placing restrictions on those pesky scientists and creating room for experts with overt financial ties to the industries affected by EPA regulations. 

The bill is being framed as a play for transparency: Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, argued that the board’s current structure is problematic because it “excludes industry experts, but not officials for environmental advocacy groups.” The inclusion of industry experts, he said, would right this injustice. 

But the White House, which threatened to veto the bill, said it would “negatively affect the appointment of experts and would weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the SAB.” 

In what might be the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing, the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in “advisory activities” that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn’t clear: experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research — the bizarre assumption, apparently, being that having conducted peer-reviewed studies on a topic would constitute a conflict of interest. “In other words,” wrote Union of Concerned Scientists director Andrew A. Rosenberg in an editorial for RollCall, “academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.”

Obviously the President is going to veto this, but it certainly paints a frightening picture of what might happen if the Republicans manage to get a veto proof majority, or somehow get a Republican into the White House.

They aren't even being covert about these kids of things anymore, or trying to hide the fact that they are anti-science and in the pockets of big business.