Report delves into shooting |

Report delves into shooting

FERGUSON, Mo. — The fatal encounter between a white police officer and an unarmed black 18-year-old here lasted less than 90 seconds, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

The paper obtained EMS records, 911 calls, police and dispatcher radio conversations and police station surveillance videos of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson from the day of the shooting. In the newly released videos, Wilson is seen walking into and out of the police station in police surveillance videos.

The newspaper, using the information and unnamed sources, reports that Wilson told authorities that he had stopped to tell Michael Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, 22, to quit walking down the middle of the street. The two kept walking, and Wilson realized Brown matched the description of the suspect in a robbery, the paper reports. That contradicts statements made by Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson. The chief has repeatedly said that Wilson did not know Brown was a suspect in a strong-arm robbery.

Attorneys for Brown’s family released a statement Saturday in response to the story, criticizing police. “Information was leaked from within the police department that Wilson was severely beaten and suffered an orbital eye socket ‘blowout,’ indicating that Michael Brown somehow deserved to die. From the video released today, it would appear the initial descriptions of his injuries were exaggerated.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.