Notices On Twitter: @ckagume

        @ckagume

Learning To Love

If we want to learn how to cook, we surround ourselves with a social environment that's about cooking. Our social environment then influences us and teaches us how to cook.

If we want to learn how to love, we have to surround ourselves with a social environment that's about love. Our social environment will then influence us and teach us how to love.

Our social environment has a very big influence on us. We should be mindful of that influence as well as the influence we have on our social environment.

No one is alone because we're all in this together, because we all influence each other.
In everything we do, we should seek to benefit others instead of ourselves.

Copyright © 2014, Carter Kagume. All Rights Reserved.

The Influence Of Our Social Environment

Our social environment has a big influence on us. Our social environment includes family, friends, school, work, hobbies, TV, radio, internet, books, magazines, newspapers etc.

If we spend enough time with someone, we begin to behave like them. We pick up their mannerisms, we pick up their way of speaking, their habits, their likes, dislikes, behaviours, we begin to talk like them, we say things that they say, we sound just the way they sound, we inflect the same way they inflect, we begin to dress like them, we wear the same types of clothes etc. It's like we're sponges or chameleons.

If our social environment is negative and destructive, it influences us to be negative and destructive. If our social environment is positive and constructive, it influences us to be positive and constructive.

We should be mindful of the influence our social environment has on us.
We should be mindful of the influence we have on our social environment.

In everything we do, we should seek to benefit others instead of ourselves.

Copyright © 2014, Carter Kagume. All Rights Reserved.

Do We Have The Right To Harm Others?

Today, we're all immersed in the quality of selfishness, seeking to benefit ourselves with no regard for others.

We have to change from personal selfishness (seeking to benefit ourselves) to mutual bestowal (seeking to benefit others).

Human rights, animal rights and earth rights* exist to protect us and all of Nature from the abusive and exploitative nature of the quality of selfishness. The quality of selfishness is a negative and destructive force that seek to harm us, others and all of Nature.

1. The Right To Not Be Harmed By Others:
• We (and Nature) have the right to not be harmed by other people's negative and destructive quality of selfishness, when they seek personal profit and gain at our (and Nature's) expense.
• Which is why there are many protective measures in place, to protect us (and Nature) from other people's quality of selfishness.
• The Positive Use Of Freedom of Speech/Expression:
• We use freedom of speech/expression to protect ourselves from other people's quality of selfishness, when they want to oppress us, when they don't want us to speak and/or express ourselves.
2. The Right To Harm Others?
• We don't have the right to harm others (and Nature) with our negative and destructive quality of selfishness, to seek personal profit and gain at other people's (and Nature's) expense.
• Which is why there are many protective measures in place, to protect other people (and Nature) from our own quality of selfishness.
• The Negative Use of Freedom of Speech/Expression:
• We use freedom of speech/expression to justify ourselves when we want to harm others with our quality of selfishness.
• For example, if I say, "I think you're an idiot. That's my personal opinion and I have the right to my personal opinion. It's called freedom of speech." It's called being immersed in the quality of selfishness, seeking to benefit myself with no regard for others. The quality of bestowal would say, "Is there anything I can do to benefit you?"

Putting protective rights in place helps protect us and Nature from other people's quality of selfishness, and it helps protect others and Nature from our own quality of selfishness, but it doesn't get to the root cause of the problem. It doesn't solve the problem because it doesn't address our internal quality of selfishness.

The only thing that will solve the problem is if we change our internal qualities from personal selfishness (seeking to benefit ourselves) to mutual bestowal (seeking to benefit others).

If we connect with each other in mutual bestowal, we won't have the need for rights because instead of harming others and all of Nature, we'll protect each other and all of Nature.

We'll intuitively seek to benefit others instead of ourselves. Just as there are no rights to let us breathe, because we breathe intuitively, so too there won't be any rights to protect humans, animals and all of Nature because we'll protect each other and all of Nature intuitively.

In everything we do, we should seek to benefit others instead of ourselves.
That is our only true right.

* Earth rights - The rights of the earth to not be polluted, exploited and abused.

Copyright © 2014, Carter Kagume. All Rights Reserved.

Benevolence

God uses us to benefit each other. We're benevolent but we don't know it because we don't see how God uses us to help each other. We need to get to a point where we're consciously aware of our benevolence and our relationship with God.

That doesn't mean that people have free license to do whatever they want. Not at all.
In everything we do, we should seek to benefit others instead of ourselves.

Copyright © 2014, Carter Kagume. All Rights Reserved.

We Become Servants To Great People

If we think a person is great, we treat them very well. They bring out the best in us and we become servants to them, doing anything to make them happy.

Of course this is rooted in selfishness because we expect a reward - fame by association, the prestige of being seen with an important person, potential personal profit and gain, honor etc.

We should get to a point where we think everyone is as great as the greatest person we know, and we should treat them as well as we'd treat the greatest person we know.

If we become benevolent servants to others, we shouldn't expect anything in return, we shouldn't expect a personal reward. The only thing we should expect is to bring contentment to The Creator by seeking to benefit others instead of ourselves.

• Christians:
• Treat others as you would treat Jesus.
• If Jesus were a homeless beggar, how would you treat him?
• Jesus said, "... whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me." (Matthew 25:40, NIV)
• Muslims:
• Treat others as you would treat Muhammad.
• If Muhammad were a homeless beggar, how would you treat him?
• Jews:
• Treat others as you would treat Abraham.
• If Abraham were a homeless beggar, how would you treat him?
• Hindus:
• Treat others as you would treat Krishna.
• If Krishna were a homeless beggar, how would you treat him?
• Buddhists:
• Treat others as you would treat Buddha.
• If Buddha were a homeless beggar, how would you treat him?

We're all one family and we have to start treating each other as one family. We're different and we have different roles to play, but we're all equal.

In everything we do, we should seek to benefit others instead of ourselves.
We should treat others as well as we'd treat the greatest person we know.

Copyright © 2014, Carter Kagume. All Rights Reserved.

Reaching The Purpose Of Creation Through Bestowal

Everybody wants to reach the purpose of creation, but the problem is that they want to do so by themselves, on their own, a desire that comes from the quality of selfishness (seeking to benefit ourselves with no regard for others).

The only way we can come to the purpose of creation is if we do so through others, by seeking to benefit others instead of ourselves.

Copyright © 2014, Carter Kagume. All Rights Reserved.

How The USA Shootings May Influence Others

We live in an integral system that's interconnected and interdependent. Events in one part of the system affects things elsewhere.

Here's a hypothetical example of how this integral system can work. I'm not saying this is what happened, I'm just using it as an example to show how we're interconnected.

1. First Event:
• On Nov 22, 2014 in Cleveland, Ohio, USA, police officer Timothy Loehmann kills 12 year old Tamir Rice. [1] 
2. Second Event:
• Taliban militants in Pakistan read the news about the events in the USA and get new ideas about killing children.
• On Dec 16, 2014 in Peshawar, Pakistan, Taliban militants kill 132 school children and 9 adults, 141 people in total. 
3. Reaction:
• Hypocrisy:
• Not knowing that the two events are interconnected through the influence of our social environment, that the first event is responsible for influencing the second event, the same people who support the police officer shooting in the USA, condemn the Taliban shooting in Pakistan. If the shooting in the USA had never happened, the shooting in Pakistan would never have happened.
• Both events are deplorable and shouldn't have happened, yet in both cases, those responsible find their own ways of 'justifying' the killings.
• The details of the events are different, but they're similar in that children are dead at the hands of a police officer and Taliban militants.
• If I slap someone and somebody sees me do it, then - having influenced them - they go slap someone and I condemn them for it, I'd be a hypocrite. Instead, we should seek to do good to others and to benefit them in positive and constructive ways. By so doing, we'll influence others to do the same.

We have to change from personal selfishness (seeking to benefit ourselves) to mutual bestowal (seeking to benefit others).

Through the influence of our social environment (family, friends, colleagues, acquaintances, school, work, hobbies, radio, TV, movies, the internet, magazines, newspapers, books etc.), when we behave in negative and destructive ways, we influence others to do the same, and when we behave in positive and constructive ways, we influence others to do the same.

We live in an integral system that's interconnected and interdependent. Events in one part of the system affects things elsewhere.

Instead of influencing others in negative and destructive ways, we should seek to influence others in positive and constructive ways.

In everything we do, we should seek to benefit others instead of ourselves.

_________

References:

1. Shooting of Tamir Rice. www.en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved Dec 19, 2014.
2. Pakistan Taliban: Peshawar school attack leaves 141 dead. www.bbc.com. Dec 16, 2014. Retrieved Dec 19, 2014.

Copyright © 2014, Carter Kagume. All Rights Reserved.

Are You A Good Or Bad Leader?

Are you a good or bad leader? You can assess yourself and decide.

In The Bible, kings were judged by the LORD based on their performance as leaders:

1. Bad Kings:
• Bad kings were kings who were immersed in personal selfishness, seeking to benefit themselves with no regard for others.
• Ahab was an example, as it is written, "Ahab son of Omri did more evil in the eyes of the LORD than any of those before him. (1 Kings 16:30, NIV)
2. Good Kings:
• Good kings were kings who were in the quality of bestowal, seeking to benefit others instead of themselves.
• Hezekiah was an example, as it is written, "He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD ..." (2 Kings 18:3) and "Hezekiah trusted in the LORD, the God of Israel. There was no one like him among all the kings of Judah, either before him or after him." (2 Kings 18:5)

Leaders today have to ask themselves whether they're good or bad leaders, whether their behaviour and decisions come from the quality of selfishness or bestowal.

Everything is recorded for posterity and leaders should know that they're being judged, not only by their own employees, citizens and/or the world, but also, by God Himself.

Leaders have the tough job of making decisions, even when those decisions aren't popular, but they're the right thing to do.

Remember, we live in an integral system and the smallest positive and constructive action can have a huge impact, even beyond our own understanding.

In everything we do, we should seek to benefit others instead of ourselves.

Copyright © 2014, Carter Kagume. All Rights Reserved.

Trust Can Be A Very Powerful Comforter

Have you ever seen someone who's really good at what they do, whether they're a waitress, a chef, a carpenter, a doctor etc., there's this calm confidence in their manner and demeanor, and it fills you with a deep sense of comfort because you know that you're in good hands? And when you watch them work you have no doubt in your mind that they know what they're doing. And you trust them completely.

That's how I feel about God. He's REALLY good at what He does. When I watch Him work, I'm filled with a deep sense of comfort because I know that I'm in good hands, I know that we're all in good hands. And I trust Him completely.

Whether 'good' things happen, or 'bad' things happen, know that there is none else besides Him. Trust can be a very powerful comforter. Trust that you're in good hands, because you are, we all are. We're in God's hands and He's REALLY good at what He does.

Copyright © 2014, Carter Kagume. All Rights Reserved.

The Killing Of Children Has To Stop

The quality of selfishness (seeking to benefit ourselves) is responsible for the killing of children that we've seen recently:

1. Police & Militants Killing Children:
• On Dec 16, 2014 in Peshawar, Pakistan, Taliban militants killed 132 school children and 9 adults, 141 people in total. [1]
• On Nov 22, 2014 in Cleveland, Ohio, USA, police officer Timothy Loehmann killed 12 year old Tamir Rice. [2]
• Rice was brandishing a toy gun in a park, and sadly, he probably learned his behaviour from watching adults on TV or elsewhere.
• On Aug 9, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri, USA, police officer Darren Wilson killed 18 year old teenager Michael Brown. [3]
2. Children Killing Children:
• On Apr 20, 1999 in Colombine, Colorado, USA, senior students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 students, 1 teacher, then killed themselves. [4]
• Children learn their behaviour from the violence they see on TV, in movies, in video games, in comic books etc. The violent content is generated by adults. We teach children how to be violent then we're shocked when they behave violently.
• We have to set positive and constructive examples for children so they don't learn negative and destructive behaviour.
• Here is a list of all the school shootings in the USA. [5] (Not all were perpetrated by children and the list includes colleges and universities.)
3. Parents Killing Children:
• On Jun 18, 2014 in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, Justin Ross Harris left his 22 month old son Cooper in a hot car all day. When he returned to his car, he found Cooper dead.
• Parents selfishly don't want to look after their own children. They don't want to be up all night, worried all day, dealing with exhaustion, lack of sleep etc. They see their own children as interfering with and/or interrupting their own lives. To eliminate 'the problem', they kill their own children.

Who suffers? The children!

We're surrounded by the quality of selfishness all the time - homelessness, poverty, the gap between the rich and the poor, crime, pollution, injustice etc. The killing of children is just another manifestation of that same quality of selfishness.

The quality of selfishness always has an excuse to justifying harming others - I was doing my job, it was revenge, I wanted more time to myself etc.

There are hundreds of millions of children living in slums, in deplorable conditions, exposed to disease, exploitation and even death. Yet we're not violently shocked by that. We've become numb to it, we don't even think about it.

A time will come when the deplorable state of the world will shock us and we'll weep for the world that we've created. 

We have to change from personal selfishness (seeking to benefit ourselves) to mutual bestowal (seeking to benefit others).

If we don't change, we'll see more examples of the quality of selfishness, and it will only get worse.

That said, remember that there is none else besides Him. God has a way of making everything right. Nothing bad has ever happened to us, others or all of Nature.

That doesn't mean that people have free license to do whatever they want. Not at all.

In everything we do, we should seek to benefit others instead of ourselves.

_________

References:

1. Pakistan Taliban: Peshawar school attack leaves 141 dead. www.bbc.com. Dec 16, 2014. Retrieved Dec 17, 2014.
2. Shooting of Tamir Rice. www.en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved Dec 17, 2014
3. Shooting of Michael Brown. www.en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved Dec 17, 2014
4. Colombine High School massacre. www.en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved Dec 17, 2014.
5. List of school shootings in the United States. www.en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved Dec 17, 2014.
6. Karimi, Faith, Michael Pearson (Jul 9, 2014). Georgia toddler death: Who is Justin Ross Harris. www.cnn.com. Retrieved Dec 17, 2014.

Copyright © 2014, Carter Kagume. All Rights Reserved.

Elohim And Nature Are Connected

In gematria [1], the Hebrew words  ם י ה ל א (Elohim = God) and  ע ב ט ה (Ha Teva = Nature) are connected because they have the same numerical value of 86.

•  ם י ה ל א (Elohim = God) 
•  א = 1
• ל = 30
• ה = 5
•   י = 10
• ם = 40  (Using 40 for mem and not 600 for mem sofit)
•     = 86 Total
•  ע ב ט ה (Ha Teva = Nature) 
•  ה = 5
•  ט = 9
•  ב = 2
•  ע = 70
•     = 86 Total

_______

References:

1. Gematria. www.en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved Dec 17, 2014.

Copyright © 2014, Carter Kagume. All Rights Reserved.

Only God Can Change Our Internal Qualities

Only God can change our internal qualities from selfishness (seeking to benefit ourselves) to bestowal (seeking to benefit others):

1. Ask Him to change your internal qualities from selfishness to bestowal, so you can seek to benefit others and all of nature, and enter into adhesion with Him.
2. When you get to a point where you're seeking to benefit others instead of yourself, ask Him to change other people's internal qualities from selfishness to bestowal, so they can seek to benefit others and all of nature, and enter into adhesion with Him.

Ultimately, the goal is to bring contentment to The Creator. From the love of friends, we come to the love of God.

In everything we do, we should seek to benefit others instead of ourselves.

Copyright © 2014, Carter Kagume. All Rights Reserved.

Bring Contentment To The Creator

Seek to bring contentment to The Creator

by seeking to benefit others

and all of Nature.

Copyright © 2014, Carter Kagume. All Rights Reserved.

The Quality Of Selfishness Is Our Enemy

The quality of selfishness (seeking to benefit ourselves) is our enemy because it causes us to harm ourselves, others and all of Nature. We have to overcome this internal enemy by rising above our egos, by stop causing harm to others and by seeking to benefit others instead of ourselves.

Copyright © 2014, Carter Kagume. All Rights Reserved.

Don't Be Afraid, God Is With Us

There's a lot going on in the world right now and a lot of people are hurting. Stay calm and comfort those around you who need it. Think of others instead of yourself. Seek to benefit others instead of yourself.

Do not be afraid, God is with us.

Copyright © 2014, Carter Kagume. All Rights Reserved.

Changing From Selfishness To Bestowal Is A Process

The transformation from personal selfishness (seeking to benefit ourselves) to mutual bestowal (seeking to benefit others) is a process; just like getting pregnant, going into labour and giving birth is a process; and just like growing up from childhood to adulthood is a process.

With respect to the quality of bestowal, some people may be expecting instant gratification, instant answers, instant results, an immediate fix, all the answers at once, but we know that life doesn't work that way. Here's an explanation:

1. Overwhelming:
• Too much, too soon, can be too much.
• If a person is given too much new information, they may become overwhelmed, which isn't a good thing. A gradual process gives people time to adjust to new information, new situations and new states.
2. Learning:
• Learning is always a process that takes time. We need time to learn, and it takes time to go from simple material to more detailed, complicated material.
3. Growing:
• Growing is always a process that takes time. Just as it takes time to grow from childhood to adulthood, we need time to grow from selfishness to bestowal.
4. Love:
• Love is very gentle and tender and this is reflected in the gradual processes of growth and development.
5. The Bible:
• The Bible was revealed over thousands of years - The Torah was given to Moses, The Psalms to King David etc. The book we know today wasn't written in one sitting, it was thousands of years in the making, including the time it took to be translated into Greek, English and other languages.
6. The Quran:
• The Quran was revealed to Muhammad over 23 years starting in 609 CE (age 40) until his death in 632 CE (age 62 or 63). It took another 20 years after his death before it was committed to written form. [1] Then there's the time it took to be translated into other languages.

Be patient. Take this time to learn, to grow and to adjust. There's more coming, just don't expect it all at once. A little bit at a time will help us adjust to the new information that we're given.

Expect a gradual process of revelation consistent with the gradual revelation of The Bible, the gradual revelation of The Quran, the gradual process of learning and the gradual process of growing.

In everything we do, we should seek to benefit others instead of ourselves.
_________

References:

1. Quran. www.en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved Dec 15, 2014.

Copyright © 2014, Carter Kagume. All Rights Reserved.

Donald Sterling Wasn't Being Racist, He Was Jealous

Is September 2013, Donald Sterling was having a private phone conversation with his love interest V. Stiviano. He was jealous because he'd seen a photo she'd posted to Instagram. On April 25, 2014, a recording of the phone conversation was released publicly, and Donald Sterling can be heard saying,  "You can sleep with [black people]. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want", but "the little I ask you is ... not to bring them to my games". [1] These comments weren't spoken out of racism, they were spoken out of jealousy.

Here's why:

1. Racist People Don't Date Minorities:
• V. Stiviano is part black and part Mexican. [2] If Donald Sterling were racist, he wouldn't be interested in having a romantic relationship with a minority, but he was interested in having a romantic relationship with Stiviano.
2. Jealousy Makes People Say And Do Strange Things:
• A jealous person will say and do anything and everything to win and/or retain the affection of their love interest.
• Out of jealousy, a person will say negative, derogatory, demeaning, insulting, and disparaging things about anyone and everyone that their love interest spends time with, including their family, friends, acquaintances, potential suitors, and even the family dog.
• The jealous person wants the full and undivided attention and affection of their love interest, and they may say and do strange things in order to achieve that.

I'm not saying that jealous people have free license to do and say whatever they want. Not at all. In everything we do, we should seek to benefit others instead of ourselves.

What I am saying is that Donald Sterling's comments to Stiviano weren't racist, he was jealous and wanted Stiviano all to himself.

_______
References:

1. Donald Sterling. www.en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved Dec 14, 2014.
2. Yan, Holly (July 3, 2014). The woman next to the Clippers' owner: What's known about V. Stiviano. www.cnn.com. Retrieved Dec 14, 2014.

Copyright © 2014, Carter Kagume. All Rights Reserved.

The Michael Brown And Darren Wilson Shooting Incident

Edited Jan 8, 2015.

WARNING: This post contains violent and graphic content that some readers may find disturbing. Discretion is advised.

On Aug 9, 2014, white police officer Darren Wilson (28 years old) fatally shot black teenager Michael Brown (18 years old) in Ferguson, Missouri, USA. On Nov 24, 2014, a grand jury reached a decision not to indict Darren Wilson, and the evidence and transcripts related to the case were released publicly. [1]

I reviewed some of the grand jury documents that were released, focusing on Darren Wilson and Michael Brown, specifically Darren Wilson's testimony before the grand jury (pages 196-281) [2], Darren Wilson's interview with the detective [3], Michael Brown's private autopsy results [4], and the radio traffic [5]. 

Darren Wilson's own testimony paints the picture of a power hungry, self-serving police officer bent on power and control, who after having been defied several times by teenager Michael Brown, stopped at nothing to get his power back.

As a white police officer, Darren Wilson wasn't going to let a troubled black youth defy him. He was the one with the power, control and authority and he was going to let Michael Brown know that.

The interaction between Darren Wilson and Michael Brown was a power struggle between a power hungry police officer trying to exert his power, and an 18 year old teenager trying to exert his autonomy and independence.

While Darren Wilson could have diffused the situation and secured his physical safety several times, he chose not to. Instead, he chose the most confrontational option, which would lead him to kill Michael Brown, all so he could selfishly secure his own power.

Michael Brown's greatest threat to Darren Wilson wasn't physical, it was that Michael Brown defied Darren Wilson's power, control and authority, and that's the threat Darren Wilson sought to eliminate. 

• Summary Of Events:
1. Police officer Darren Wilson confronted Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson for walking down the middle of the street, later realizing they were shoplifters.
2. Michael Brown and Darren Wilson got into an altercation at the police car, and Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown for the first time in his right palm.
3. After a struggle, and after having been shot at again, Michael Brown ran for his life. Darren Wilson got out of his car, chased him, and eventually shot him to death.
4. The entire incident lasted about a minute. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 272:20), (Wilson, p. 15)
5. Michael Brown was shot 7 times, twice to his head, once to his chest and four times to his right hand. An 8th entry wound was a re-entry track. (OME, Private Autopsy, p. 6)
6. Darren Wilson fired his gun 12 times. His gun holds 13 rounds, 12 in the magazine and one in the chamber. (Wilson, p. 15)
• 7 shots hit Michael Brown. (OME, Private Autopsy, p. 6)
• 1 shot missed Brown at the car. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 233:3-4)
• 1 live round was left in the chamber. (Wilson, p. 17)
• 4 rounds were unaccounted for, probably shots that missed Brown.
• (Wilson didn't reload his gun (two extra magazines were unused). A shotgun in his car was not used. Besides his OC spray (mace) and asp (baton) he didn't have another backup weapon). (Wilson, p. 17)

Here are my notes about the incident:

1. THE INTERACTION ON THE ROAD:
• According to Darren Wilson, he saw Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson walking down the middle of the street and he pulled up and asked them to walk on the sidewalk. (Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson had taken a box of cigarillos from a local convenience store, but Darren Wilson didn't know that they were shoplifters.)
• First Defiance:
• According to Darren Wilson, Michael Brown defied him and said, "fuck what you have to say" (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 208:23-24), undermining Darren Wilson's authority, and Brown and Johnson kept walking down the middle of the street. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 209:8-10)
• Wilson was surprised by the defiance and said, "It was a very unusual and not expected response from a simple request." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 208:25 - 209:1)
• Did Darren Wilson mean that it was an unusual response because he didn't expect to be defied? Was he surprised that Michael Brown had defied his power and authority so blatantly?
• Training: Aren't police officers trained to deal with unusual and unexpected responses?
• Michael Brown probably thought that Darren Wilson was there for the shoplifting incident; whereas, Darren Wilson was simply asking them to walk on the sidewalk. At that time he didn't know that they were shoplifters.
• Darren Wilson Realizes They're Shoplifters:
• According to Darren Wilson, as soon as they walked past his car, ignoring his request to walk on the sidewalk, he realized that they were the shoplifters he'd heard about on his personal portable police radio (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 202:12-18) because he recognized the cigarillos in Michael Brown's hand and he recognized Dorian Johnson's black shirt. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 209:2-7)
• Darren Wilson said, "... after he made his comments, I realized cigarillos  ... I gotta stop and talk to the guy." (Wilson, p. 14)
• Darren Wilson now had a reason to exert his power, especially after Michael Brown had defied him so blatantly.
• First Radio Call For Help:
• Darren Wilson made his first call on the radio saying, "Frank 21, I'm on Canfield with two, send me another car." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 209:11-13)
• This call was made from his car radio (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 240:2-5) which was on channel 1. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 231:2-3) It's the only radio call from Darren Wilson during the incident that was recorded on the radio traffic transcript and that reads, "21, put me on Canfield with two and send me another car." (Radio Traffic, p. 9, track 369) Dispatch responded to the call by asking, "21, you're out on Canfield? (Radio Traffic, p. 9, track 370)
• First Opportunity - Wait For Backup:
• At this point, Darren Wilson knew that they were the shoplifters he'd heard about on his police radio, and he also knew the call had been assigned to two other officers, he wasn't assigned to the call. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 202:12-25 - 203:1-5)
• He could have given more information to dispatch letting them know that he had a visual on the shoplifters and waited for backup. He could have acted in a supporting role to the officers who'd been assigned to the call, and waited for them to arrive. However, he was angry that Michael Brown had defied him and he wanted to assert his authority, which is why he took matters into his own hands without properly communicating with dispatch.
• When asked about why he didn't give dispatch more information, Darren Wilson said he intended to, once more developed (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 241:8-21), meaning only after he'd had a chance to exert his power.
• Second Defiance:
• Now realizing who they were, Darren Wilson drove to cut them off, and when he tried to get out of his car, Michael Brown slammed his car door shut saying, "what the fuck are you going to do about it" (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 209:14-24), again defying Darren Wilson's authority.
• According to Darren Wilson, Michael Brown was, "just staring at me, almost like to intimidate me or to overpower me. The intense face he had was just not what I expected from any of this." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 210:1-4). Michael Brown was completely defying Darren Wilson authority and Darren Wilson knew it. There was a power struggle going on between them.
• Playing Naive: It's unclear why Darren Wilson didn't expect that response since at this point, he knew they were the shoplifters, and they'd already defied him by ignoring his request to walk on the sidewalk. Even though Darren Wilson didn't talk to Michael Brown about the shoplifting incident (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 234:3-6), the intensity of the interaction between them WAS about the shoplifting incident, and they both knew it.
• Training: Aren't police offers trained to deal with intense faces and unexpected responses? Or was Darren Wilson again surprised because he'd been so blatantly defied again?
• Third Defiance:
• According to Darren Wilson, he tried to get out of his car again and Michael Brown slammed it shut again. Then an altercation ensued in the car. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 210:12-16) Once again, Michael Brown defied Darren Wilson's authority.
2. THE INTERACTION AT THE CAR - BEFORE BROWN WAS FIRST SHOT:
• A Five Year Old: 
• According to Darren Wilson, during the altercation at the car, he grabbed Michael Brown's forearm (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 258:5-10) and said, " I felt like a 5 year old holding onto Hulk Hogan." He continued, "... that's just how big he felt and how small I felt just from grasping his arm." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 212:13-22) 
• Size: 
• Michael Brown and Darren Wilson were about the same height. Michael Brown was 6'5" (77 inches) [6], 285 pounds. (OME, Private Autopsy, p. 2) Darren Wilson is 6'4", 210 pounds. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p.198:17-25)
• While Michael Brown was heavier than Darren Wilson, at 6'4" Darren Wilson doesn't have the stature of a 5 year old, he's a pretty big guy himself.
• When Darren Wilson said, "... he's obviously bigger than I was and stronger ..." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 216:20), he was trying to allude to a large size differential, but at 6'4" Darren Wilson doesn't have the stature of a 5 year old, he's a pretty big guy himself. Doesn't police training include strength training? 
• When Darren Wilson first saw Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson, he said, "... the next thing I noticed was the size of the individuals because either the first one was really small or the second one was really big." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 207:16-18). Again, Darren Wilson is trying to point out that Michael Brown was a big guy. Michael Brown was big compared to Dorian Johnson (Brown being 6'5", 285 pounds and Johnson being 5'5", 130 pounds (Wilson, p. 16)), but at 6'4", Darren Wilson was almost as tall as Michael Brown.
• Darren Wilson said that Michael Brown's head was higher than the top of his car and that he had to duck to get in his car. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 210:14-16), giving the imagery that Michael Brown was a large looming guy bending down into the car. Darren Wilson was driving a Chevy Tahoe (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 204:2-3), which is a tall car with an overall height of 74.4 inches (6'2"). [7] At 6'5", Brown wasn't that much taller than the car itself and at 6'4", Darren Wilson would also have to duck to get into his car. We know that the car was pretty high up off the ground because Darren Wilson said that Michael Brown's stomach was against the door. (Wilson, p. 5) Based on the center of gravity, who would have the strength advantage: Someone who's 6'5", 285 pounds standing outside the car or someone who's 6'4", 210 pounds, sitting in the car at about 3' off the ground?
• Training:
• Did Darren Wilson get the appropriate police training if an 18 year olds FOREARM made him feel like a 5 year old?
• Aren't police officers trained to deal with all kinds of people, including people the size of Hulk Hogan?
• Second Opportunity - Why Not Drive Off?
• During the altercation in the car before Michael Brown got shot, Darren Wilson had the opportunity to drive off and secure his physical safety, but he didn't.
• Darren Wilson Seeks Control: Darren Wilson said he tried to "... get out to have some type of control ..." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 212:16), that he was "... trying to move him and somewhat control him so I could get out of the car." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 258:13-14) First, why was Darren Wilson trying to get out of the car if he was struggling to control Michael Brown? Second, why not drive off?
• Darren Wilson said he felt trapped in his car (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 212:17). He wondered, "... how do I get this guy away from me. What do I do to not get beaten inside my car." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 213:6-7) He also said, "... one of those punches in my face could knock me out or worse ... the third one could be fatal if he hit me ... or at least unconscious and then who knows what would happen to me after that." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 216:18-25 - 217:1-2) Why not drive off? Why not physically remove himself from the situation in order to secure his physical safety?
• Darren Wilson said that they're trained "... not to run away from a threat, to deal with a threat and that is what I was doing." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 267:4-7) If Darren Wilson felt that his life was in jeopardy, especially if he felt that he wasn't in control, why not drive off? Driving off wouldn't be running away from the threat, it would be a strategic move - to secure his physical safety, to diffuse the situation and to wait for back up. Did he stay because he wanted to confront the person who was defying his power?
• When asked why he wanted to get out of the car, pointing out that he was more mobile in the car than on foot, Darren Wilson said, "... I need to kind of stay where I can keep him there, keep myself safe and wait for someone to get there." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 262:1-6) Darren Wilson got out of the car knowing that he could keep himself safe, which means he wasn't afraid for his life. Unless by keeping himself safe he meant that he could kill Michael Brown if he had to.
• We know that Darren Wilson's vehicle was on and running the whole time, because he turned it off at the end of the incident. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 235:19-20) It would have been very easy for him to drive off, secure his physical safety and wait for backup, but he didn't.
• Exaggeration:
• By saying he felt like a 5 year old against Hulk Hogan, was Darren Wilson trying to lessen his power and exaggerate the threat in order to justify killing Michael Brown? Was he trying to elicit an emotional response from the grand jury in order to avoid getting indicted?
• Darren Wilson used this exaggerated language only in front of the grand jury (on Sept 16, 2014), and not during his interview with the detective (on Aug 10, 2014). Perhaps the extra time had given him new ways to express himself, ways that diminished his power and vilified Brown, hoping that would exonerate him.
• Darren Wilson's Gun:
• While he was in his car, Darren Wilson said he was reluctant to use his OC spray (mace) because of the close quarters of the car, he couldn't reach his asp (baton), he doesn't carry a taser and that reaching for his flashlight would have compromised him, which is why he reached for his gun. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 213:10-25 - 214:1-17)
• Darren Wilson drew his own gun. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 214:17) If he felt like a 5 year old against Hulk Hogan, why wasn't he concerned that Michael Brown may gain control of his gun?
• Fourth Defiance:  According to Darren Wilson, Michael Brown immediately grabbed his gun and said, "you are too much of a pussy to shoot me" (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 214:21-22), again defying Darren Wilson's authority.
• Darren Wilson said, "... he grabs it with his right hand ... and he twists it and then he digs it down into my hip." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 215:4-6)
• It sounds as though Michael Brown was twisting the gun away from himself so he wouldn't get shot. It sounds like a defensive move.
• If Michael Brown was Hulk Hogan up against a 5 year old, and if he really wanted to harm Darren Wilson, wouldn't he have taken the gun out of Darren Wilson's hand and shot him? But he didn't.
• Darren Wilson said, "He didn't pull it from my holster, but whenever it was visible to him, he then took complete control of it." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 269:1-3) If Michael Brown had complete control of the gun, he would have taken it out of Darren Wilson's hand and shot him, but he didn't. Instead, he got shot and he had to run for his life.
• When the gun was at Darren Wilson's hip, he was able to push it to a certain point because he said, "When I did get up to this point ..." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 224:6-7), so he obviously had some strength, beyond that of a 5 year old.
• Darren Wilson said, "...this guy is going to kill me if he gets ahold of this gun." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 224:11-12) If Darren Wilson felt like a five year old against Hulk Hogan, why did he pull his gun out in the first place knowing that he could potentially get killed?
• Training: Did Darren Wilson get the appropriate police training if he wasn't able to assess the threat of pulling his gun out, especially if he felt like a five year old up against Hulk Hogan?
• Michael Brown Gets Shot In His Right Palm:
• During the altercation in the car, Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown in his right palm.
• Darren Wilson explained, "When it went off, it shot through my door panel and my window was down and glass flew out of my door panel." He continued, "When I see the glass come up ... a chunk about that big comes across my right hand and then I notice I have blood on the back of my hand." He goes on, "I looked at him ... and he kind of stepped back ..." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 224:13-24)
• This reads as though the glass cut Darren Wilson, but the blood on the back of Darren Wilson's hand was from the gunshot wound to Michael Brown's right palm. We know this because:
• When asked if he had any injuries to his hand, Darren Wilson said no. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 219:10-11)
• Darren Wilson said, "I believe the blood was from ... the very first shot that fired ... 'cause I was not cut or bleeding anywhere." He explained that the blood on his left and right hand wasn't his and he said, "It was his blood" (Wilson, p. 10), meaning it was Michael Brown's blood. He gave this testimony to the detective on Aug 10, 2014. (However, in his testimony before the grand jury on Sept 16, 2014, he seems to insinuate that it was the glass that cut him.)
• Michael Brown's private autopsy showed that, " ...microscopic sections show gunshot particulate matter under the skin that indicate that the gun was within inches of the hand when discharged." (OME, Private Autopsy, p. 2)
• When asked if Michael Brown's right hand was on the gun when the shot went off, Darren Wilson said, "I believe so." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 263: 3-5)
• Darren Wilson said, "The first shot, judging by his reaction, he went back ... I thought it hit him in the leg, in the hip ..." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 232:24-25 - 233:1) Darren Wilson also explained, "After the first shot hit him, he went down and kind of held his hip for a second ..." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 260:20-21) When Michael Brown had been shot in his right palm, he bent over in pain, which people tend to do. He'd been shot in his right palm, not his hip.
• Back at the office, Darren Wilson said, "... thinking that I was cut with someone else's blood on me, I had to wash my hands." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 242:10-11) Darren Wilson obviously knew that he had Michael Brown's blood on him, which is why he had to wash his hands.
• Back at the office when Darren Wilson was putting his gun in an evidence envelope he saw blood on the gun. When asked if that could have been from when he shot Michael Brown, Darren Wilson said yes. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 245:21-25 - 246:3-5) 
3. THE INTERACTION AT THE CAR - AFTER BROWN WAS FIRST SHOT:
• Third Opportunity - Why Not Drive Off?
• During the altercation in the car after Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown, Darren Wilson again had the opportunity to drive off and secure his physical safety, but he didn't.
• According to Darren Wilson, when he shot Michael Brown in his right palm, Michael Brown stepped back (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 224:23), giving Darren Wilson enough time to drive off since he thought that his life was in danger, but he didn't. Why didn't Darren Wilson drive off? Did he stay because he wanted to confront the person who was defying his power? Did he want to win the power struggle?
• It Looks Like A Demon:
• After Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown, he explained, "... he looked up at me and had the most intense aggressive face. The only way I can describe it, it looks like a demon, that's how angry he looked." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 224:25 - 225:1-3)
• The reason why Michael Brown was angry was because he'd just been shot. If he was defiant before he'd been shot, he was even more defiant after he'd been shot.
• Training:
• Did Darren Wilson get the appropriate police training if the angry face of an 18 year old teenager was enough to frighten him? Or was it the 5 year old in him talking?
• Aren't police officers trained to deal with all kinds of people, including the most angry, frightening and scary looking people?
• Exaggeration:
• By saying "it looks like a demon", was Darren Wilson trying to lessen his power and exaggerate the threat in order to justify killing Michael Brown? Is it because demons are bad and should be killed? Was he trying to elicit an emotional response from the grand jury in order to avoid getting indicted?
• By referring to Michael Brown, or Michael Brown's face as "it", Darren Wilson dehumanized him, took away his humanity in order to make him a greater threat, all to influence the grand jury in his favour. Michael Brown wasn't a demon, he wasn't an "it", he was a human being, a person, a teenager.
• Darren Wilson used this exaggerated language only in front of the grand jury on (Sept 16, 2014), and not during his interview with the detective (on Aug 10, 2014). Perhaps the extra time had given him new ways to express himself, ways that diminished his power and vilified Brown, hoping that would exonerate him.
• Fifth Defiance:
• According to Darren Wilson, after Michael Brown had been shot in the right palm, he was angry and went back at Darren Wilson with his hands up (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 225:8-12), again defying Darren Wilson's authority.
• We know that Darren Wilson said that Michael Brown's stomach was against the door (Wilson, p. 5), but he also said that after he shot Michael Brown, "the whole top half of his body came in and tried to hit me again." (Wilson, p. 8)
• The whole top half of Michael Brown's body implies from his waist up. However, if Michael Brown's stomach was against the door, then only his chest and head would have been in the car. Again, Darren Wilson exaggerated the situation in order to increase the threat.
• Not Looking:
• Darren Wilson wasn't looking at Michael Brown when he tried to shoot him a second time. He said, "Without even looking I just grabbed the top of my gun, the slide and I racked it ... still not looking, just holding my hand up, I pulled the trigger again..." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 225:22-25)
• Wasn't Darren Wilson concerned that Michael Brown may have a gun and that he may try and use it? Didn't he want to see what Michael Brown was doing? Or did he already know that Michael Brown was unarmed because if he had a gun he would have already used it?
• Not Feeling:
• When asked if Michael Brown was still trying to hit him when he went to rack the gun, Darren Wilson replied, "I didn't look up." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 263:15-17). You don't need to look up to know if someone is trying to hit you, you can just feel it.
• Michael Brown Runs For His Life:
• After having been shot at twice, first in his right palm and another shot that missed, Michael Brown ran for his life. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 226:10-11) He was afraid that he was going to get shot and potentially killed. He was afraid of Darren Wilson, which is why he ran.
• If Michael Brown was Hulk Hogan against a five year old, he wouldn't have run, but he did, because he was afraid of Darren Wilson.
• If Michael Brown had a gun, he wouldn't have run, but he did, because he was unarmed and was afraid of Darren Wilson. 
• Why Didn't Darren Wilson Call For An Ambulance?
• Darren Wilson knew that he'd shot Michael Brown, he thought he'd shot him in the hip. He said, "The first shot, judging by his reaction, he went back ... I thought it hit him in the leg, in the hip ..." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 232:24-25 - 233:1) If he thought that he'd shot Michael Brown, why didn't he call for an ambulance? Or was he more interested in securing his own power than he was in taking care of Michael Brown's injury?
4. THE INTERACTION OUTSIDE OF THE CAR:
• Fourth Opportunity - Why Get Out Of The Car?
• After Darren Wilson had shot at Michael Brown the second time (and missed), Michael Brown ran for his life, again giving Darren Wilson the opportunity to secure his physical safety - he could have stayed in the car, he could have driven off and/or he could have waited for backup - but he didn't. He got out of his car. Why did Darren Wilson get out of his car if he was afraid for his life?
• Second Radio Call For Help:
• As Darren Wilson was getting out of his car, he radioed for help a second time using his personal radio, saying, "shots fired, send me more cars." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 226:13) 
• Ambulance: He knew that he'd shot Michael Brown. Why didn't he ask for an ambulance? He asked for more cars but not an ambulance? Wasn't he concerned about Michael Brown's injury?
• (This call didn't go out because his personal radio had switched to channel 3. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 231:1-3) The call is not recorded on the radio traffic transcript. [5])
• Radio Silence: After this call, why didn't Darren Wilson notice that he hadn't received a response from dispatch? Wouldn't he have expected a response from dispatch? Wouldn't he have expected to hear radio chatter about the incident?
• A 5 Year Old:
• If Michael Brown's FOREARM made Darren Wilson feel like a 5 year old while he was in the car, then Michael Brown's entire body would have been unstoppable.
• Darren Wilson wasn't able to control Michael Brown in the car, so it was unlikely that he was going to be able to control him outside of the car.
• Did Darren Wilson get out of the car knowing that if Michael Brown confronted him he would shoot and kill him?
• Power, Control And Authority:
• Michael Brown defied Darren Wilson's authority several times. This must have been emasculating, especially for a power hungry police officer wanting to be in control.
• After having been defied several times, Darren Wilson wanted to assert his power. Is that why he got out of his car? Knowing that he had the ultimate power, to shoot and kill Michael Brown?
• Other Weapons:
• While Darren Wilson didn't use his OC spray (mace) and asp (baton) in the car, once he got out of the car, he had access to them and the ability to use them, but he didn't, he continued to use his gun. Why didn't he use his OC spray (mace) and asp (baton) instead of his gun?
• Why Did Michael Brown Stop Running?
• After Darren Wilson got out of the car and started chasing Michael Brown down the street, Michael Brown stopped running and turned around. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 227:1-8) Why did Michael Brown stop running? Did Darren Wilson say something to provoke him? In a final act of defiance, did Michael Brown decide that he wasn't going to run for his life?
• Darren Wilson said, "... I've never seen that much aggression so quickly from a simple request to just walk on the sidewalk." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 234:1-2) It wasn't about the sidewalk, it was about the shoplifting incident and the power struggle between them. Was Darren Wilson surprised by how blatantly he'd been defied? Was he used to being obeyed and was caught off guard when Michael Brown defied him?
• Sixth Defiance:
• When Darren Wilson asked Michael Brown to "get on the ground" he didn't, again defying him.
• Michael Brown Was Unarmed:
• If Michael Brown had a gun, he probably would have used it at the car, especially after he'd been shot, but he was unarmed.
• When asked if he thought Michael Brown had a gun that he could have used at any time, Darren Wilson said, "I wasn't thinking about that at that time." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 268:2-5)
• However, when speaking about the area Darren Wilson said, "It is an antipolice area for sure ... There's a lot of gangs that reside or associate with that area. There's a lot of violence in that area, there's a lot of gun activity, drug activity, it is just not a very well liked community. That community doesn't like the police. " (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 238:12-18) He also said, "... it is a hostile environment" (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 239:3-4) and "... it was not a good area.(Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 253:3-4)
• First, who doesn't like the community? The police? The people of Ferguson? The people of St. Louis?
• Second, if it was such a rough neighbourhood, why wasn't Darren Wilson more concerned that Michael Brown may have a gun? Unless he already knew that Michael Brown was unarmed.
• Did Darren Wilson shoot and kill Michael Brown to assert police power in an antipolice area?
• Bluffing:
• After Michael Brown stopped running, he turned to face Darren Wilson and Darren Wilson said that Michael Brown's right hand, "... goes under his shirt in his waistband and starts running at me." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 227:12-13) Michael Brown was bluffing that he had a gun. Why? Did he intentionally do that knowing that Darren Wilson was going to shoot and kill him? Did Darren Wilson's confrontational behaviour push Michael Brown to suicide by cop? [8]
• Hands Up:
• Not once did Darren Wilson give the verbal command for Michael Brown to put his hands up or to show his hands. Instead he asked Michael Brown to "get on the ground."  (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 227:3-25) If Darren Wilson was concerned that Michael Brown had a gun, wouldn't he have asked him to put his hands up or to show his hands?
• When asked if at any point Michael Brown raised his hands, Darren Wilson said no (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 275:8-10), and that's because Darren Wilson never asked Michael Brown to raise his hands or to show his hands.
• Angry At Being Shot At:
• Insultingly, Darren Wilson said, "... like it was making him mad that I'm shooting at him." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 228:20-21) Anybody would be mad if someone was shooting at them. Who wants to get shot at?
• Michael Brown Dies:
• After Michael brown stopped running, he turned around and faced Darren Wilson. He started moving towards Darren Wilson (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 227:12-13), and that's when Darren Wilson opened fire.
• Darren Wilson said that after the first round of shots, Michael Brown "... still hadn't gone down ..." (Wilson, p. 13) Was Darren Wilson expecting Michael Brown to go down? Was he expecting to kill him?
• After a series of shots, Michael Brown was shot dead. Darren Wilson said, "... the demeanor on his face went blank, the aggression was gone, it was gone, I mean, I knew he stopped, the threat was stopped." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 229:21-24)
• The threat was gone because Michael Brown was dead. The threat to Darren Wilson's power, control and authority was gone. Isn't that why Darren Wilson got out of the car? To get his power back? To eliminate the threat that defied his power and authority?
• Darren Wilson said, "When he fell, he fell on his face. And I remember his feet coming up, like he had so much momentum carrying him forward that when he fell, his feet kind of came up a little bit and then they rested." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 229:25 - 230:1-4)
• Again Darren Wilson was trying to show that Michael Brown was a threat. Michael Brown's feet coming up had nothing to do with his momentum. From a standing still position, if a person falls forward, limp (as though they're dead, with no tension in their body), their feet will come up because they become a pivot - their front goes down and their feet come up. If Michael Brown were standing still and was shot dead and fell forward, his feet would have still come up. Michael Brown's feet came up because he was dead.
• The Use Of Deadly Force:
• When asked if he felt like his life was in jeopardy when he was sitting in the car, Darren Wilson said yes. When asked if he felt like his life was in jeopardy when he exited the vehicle and Michael Brown was advancing towards him, Darren Wilson said yes. When asked if the use of deadly force was justified at that point, Darren Wilson said yes. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 280:11-22)
• If Darren Wilson felt like his life was in jeopardy while he was in the car, why not drive off?
• If Darren Wilson felt like his life was in jeopardy outside of the car, why did he get out of the car?
• The only reason Darren Wilson felt that deadly force was justified is because he wanted to kill the threat that defied his authority. He wanted to get his power back.
• As Darren Wilson was shooting Michael Brown, he was concerned and said, "... I know if he reaches me, he'll kill me." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 229:5-6) Darren Wilson must have known that if there were to be a confrontation outside of the car he would have to use deadly force, but he chose to get out of the car anyways because asserting his power was more important to him than Michael Brown's life.
• Third Radio Call For Help:
• After Darren Wilson fatally shot Michael Brown, he called on his personal radio saying, "... send me a supervisor and every car you got." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 230:5-7)
• (This call didn't go out because his personal radio had switched to channel 3. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 231:1-3) The call is not recorded on the radio traffic transcript. [5])
• Radio Silence: During the second and third radio calls, why didn't Darren Wilson notice that his radio was silent? Wouldn't he have expected a response from dispatch? Wouldn't he have expected to hear radio chatter about the incident?
• We know that he originally heard about the shoplifting incident from his personal portable radio (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 202:12-18), so we know that it was working and he confirmed that it was working. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 204:5-15) We know that he was also able to listen to it.
• After the incident, when he was driving back to the office, he noticed that the car radio was going off and his personal radio wasn't, which is when he noticed that it had switched to channel 3. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 239:16-22)
• Channel 3 is the county radio (Wilson, p. 9) If it was on channel 3, did he hear channel 3 chatter or was it silent?
• If he heard channel 3 chatter, wouldn't he have realized that his radio had changed channels?
• If his radio was silent, wouldn't he have noticed that it was silent? Wouldn't he have expected to hear some chatter about the incident?
• Why didn't Darren Wilson notice that his radio was silent about the incident? Is it because he was blindly focused on enforcing his power over Michael Brown and lost sight of what was happening around him?
• Afraid Of Being Singled Out:
• After the incident, and consistent with his self-serving and self-preserving nature, Darren Wilson was more concerned about being singled out than he was about the dead teenager he'd just shot and killed.
• When his sergeant asked him to go sit in the car, he said, "I can't be singled out. It is already getting hostile, I can't be singled out in the car. I will leave if you want me to leave." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 236:12-15) He was concerned about his own life yet showed no remorse for the dead teenager he'd just shot and killed.
5. OTHER NOTES:
• Teenage Rebellion:
• Teenagers are known to defy authority, to be rebellious and misguided. They act out as they seek to discover their own sense of autonomy and independence. They often grow out of this phase, pull their lives together, and begin to contribute to society in a positive and constructive way.
• Shoplifting:
• How many American teenagers shoplift each year?
• How many American teenagers are shot and killed for shoplifting each year?
• How many black American teenagers are shot and killed for shoplifting each year? At least one, Michael Brown.
• Rebelling Against Police:
• How many American teenagers rebel against police each year?
• How many American teenagers are shot and killed for rebelling against police each year?
• How many black American teenagers are shot and killed for rebelling against police each year? At least one, Michael Brown.
• Was Michael Brown shot and killed for being a rebellious teenager?
• At 6'5", Michael Brown was tall, however, he was still a teenager. Because of his size, he may have been confronted a lot, which may have resulted in him developing a defensive nature, which is a part of growing up and discovering who you are. However, that still doesn't justify him being shot and killed.
• Darren Wilson's Comfort:
• Darren Wilson appears to be very concerned about his comfort:
• Darren Wilson doesn't carry a taser because it's not comfortable. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 205:18-23)
• Darren Wilson wanted to get out of the car to deal with Michael Brown because it's not his "comfort zone" to be sitting in the car talking to someone. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 261:19-21)
• After the incident, when he went to the hospital, he took off his shirt, his vest and his duty belt because he felt more comfortable. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 249:9-13)
• Was it comfortable to shoot and kill Michael Brown? Was Darren Wilson more concerned about his comfort than Michael Brown's life?
• Diffuse The Situation:
• Darren Wilson is responsible for escalating the situation to the point where he "had to" use deadly force. He had the power to diffuse the situation several times but he chose not to:
• When he first realized Brown and Johnson were shoplifters, he could have waited for backup, but he didn't.
• When he felt like a five year old in the car, he could have driven off to secure his physical safety, but he didn't.
• When he first shot Michael Brown, Michael Brown stepped back, giving Darren Wilson enough time to drive off, but he didn't.
• After he fired the second shot, missing Michael Brown, Brown ran for his life, giving Darren Wilson enough time to drive off, stay in his car and/or wait for backup, but he didn't.
• After he got out of the car, he could have used his OC spray (mace) and/or his asp (baton), but he didn't, he continued to use his gun.
• When Darren Wilson said, " ... I had to kill him." (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 236:4), there are many questions about the words "HAD TO". He didn't have to kill him, but he chose to killed him because he wanted to get his power back. He had to eliminate the threat that defied his authority.
• Training: Are police officers trained to diffuse situations? Is protecting civilian lives a priority?
• To Serve And Protect:
• Police officers are trained to serve and protect:
• Does this include protecting civilians from themselves?
• Does this include protecting civilians from power hungry police officers?
• Does this include serving antipolice areas?
• Does this include serving misguided teenagers who may engage in negative and destructive behaviour?
• The City Of Ferguson's website reads, "The Ferguson Police Department provides protection of life ..." [9] Did Darren Wilson protect Michael Brown's life?
• Michael Brown defied Darren Wilson and took away his power, emasculating him in the process.
• To increase his power, Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown to serve and protect himself, his power hungry self.
• To justify killing Michael Brown, Darren Wilson played the victim by decreasing his power in order to gain sympathy, again to serve and protect himself. Even though he could have secured his physical safety several times, he chose not to.
• Darren Wilson was selfishly seeking to protect himself, he didn't care about serving and protecting Michael Brown. If he did, he would have done things differently. He certainly wouldn't have called Michael Brown a demon, using exaggerated language intended to serve and protect himself.
• Police officers should serve and protect the public, not serve and protect themselves.
• Law enforcement personnel shouldn't feel entitled to power and they certainly shouldn't feel entitled to life, especially not over other people's lives.
• The argument that we should listen to police officers in everything they say is a cold and institutional approach to dealing with situations. Every situation is different. We're human beings, not robots and we shouldn't have a master-slave relationship with police.
• Police officers are people just like you and me. Some police officers are very kind, considerate and flexible, while others are mean, power hungry and cruel.
• It's not unreasonable to expect some negotiation when it comes to dealing with situations because often, it's about context. Also, it's about relationships, between officers and civilians.
• The Use Of Force Continuum:
• The use of force continuum [10] is a guideline of how much force law enforcement personnel can use in a given situation.
• Darren Wilson said that he thought about the use of force continuum during the altercation in the car. (Missouri v. Wilson, V5, p. 274:6-24)
• Is the use of force continuum unfairly meant to protect police officers?
• Where's the use of civilian safety continuum that's meant to serve and protect civilians? Shouldn't the focus be on civilians instead of on police officers? Shouldn't civilians be the priority?
• Police officer safety doesn't supersede civilian safety, and police officers lives aren't any more important than civilian lives. The lives of civilians and police officers are equally important and the safety of civilians and police officers is equally important.
• Power Struggles:
• It's extremely important for police to understand the psychology of human interaction, especially power struggles between officers and civilians.
• If two people enter into a power struggle, one's a police officer and the other's a civilian, does the police officer have the right to shoot and kill the civilian in order to win the power struggle?
• Police need to understand that there's a difference between serving and protecting civilians, and selfishly seeking to win a power struggle.
• People enter into power struggles all the time. However, if a person makes the mistake of entering into a power struggle with a power hungry police officer, they may lose their life, which is extremely unfair.
• New Police Training:
• Law enforcement personnel need to be trained in Integral Education and Mutual Responsibility [11], to learn about the quality of selfishness (seeking to benefit ourselves), the quality of bestowal (seeking to benefit others) and how we need to connect with each other in mutual bestowal.
• Today, we're all immersed in personal selfishness, seeking to benefit ourselves with no regard for others. When you have civilians immersed in selfishness and police officers immersed in selfishness, there's bound to be conflict and tension.
• If law enforcement personnel learn about the ego, bestowal and connection, then they'll understand human nature. They'll understand why people do the things they do and it'll change how they react to situations. Tender, caring, compassionate and sympathetic words may have a bigger impact than forceful confrontation when it comes to diffusing situations. Through mutual bestowal, law enforcement personnel may find new ways to diffuse situations that will lead to mutually beneficial results. 

Should police officers shoot and kill people who defy their power, control and authority? It's one thing to defy a police officer, it's another thing to get shot and killed for doing so.

Michael Brown defied Darren Wilson's authority from beginning to end. Darren Wilson wanted to eliminate the threat to his power, which is why he shot and killed Michael Brown.

Darren Wilson's behaviour throughout the entire incident is of a police officer seeking to serve and protect himself, rather than seeking to serve and protect Michael Brown. It's of a man seeking to enforce his authority; and in the end, he would not concede any power, not even to save Michael Brown's life.

We have to change from personal selfishness (seeking to benefit ourselves) to mutual bestowal (seeking to benefit others).

We're all one family and we have to start treating each other as one family.

In everything we do, we should seek to benefit others instead of ourselves.

________

References:

1. Shooting of Michael Brown. www.en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved Dec 13, 2014.
2. State of Missouri v. Darren Wilson. Transcript of: Grand Jury, volume V, pages 196-281 (Darren Wilson's Testimony). Sept 16, 2014. [PDF File]. www.documentcloud.org. Retrieved Dec 13, 2014.
3. Wilson, Darren (Aug 10, 2014) Interviewed By Detective of St. Louis County Police Department, Bureau of Crimes Against Persons, at St. Louis Police Headquarters, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. [PDF File] www.documentcloud.org. Retrieved Dec 13, 2014.
4. Office Of The Medical Examiner (OME), St. Louis County. (Aug 10, 2014). Private Autopsy Report, Michael Brown. St. Louis, Missouri, USA. [PDF File] www.documentcloud.org. Retrieved Dec 13, 2014.
5. Radio Traffic. Aug 9, 2014. [PDF File] www.documentcloud.org. Retrieved Dec 13, 2014.
6. Inches To Feet And Inches Calculator. www.csgnetwork.com. Retrieved Dec 13, 2014.
7. 2015 Tahoe Models & Specs. www.chevrolet.com. Retrieved Dec 13, 2014.
8. Suicide by cop. www.en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved Jan 8, 2015.
9. The City Of Ferguson Police Department. www.fergusoncity.com. Retrieved Dec 13, 2014.
10. Use of force continuum. www.en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved Dec 13, 2014.
11. Mutual Responsibility. www.mutualresponsibility.org. Retrieved Dec 14, 2014

Copyright © 2014, Carter Kagume. All Rights Reserved.