Michael Brown Shooting

[William Parcher]

Oh, absolutely. But I've seen a lot of "some cops have murdered people, therefore this must be another unjustified shooting" speculation (but put forward as fact). Just wanted to point out that playing the speculative card properly means looking in both directions... like the bad decisions that large 18 year old criminals who believe they are about to get picked up for a felony might make.

How do the relative probabilities stack up?

I don't know but I'm going to speculate that the majority of cop shootings are legally justified (according to the law). Public opinion of the justification is something else.

The immediate opinion of the cop might differ from what the law offers as well. IOW, a cop may decide not to shoot even though the law justifies (or supports) the shooting given the actions of the suspect/perp.

I speculate that this shooting was legally justified according to what the police already know. The reason that I speculate that is because I think the police would have already come down on Wilson (and said so publicly) by now if it was an illegal shooting.

 

[casebro]

I suggest that someone labeling the guy something like "nefarious thug," based on that video alone is someone who isn't familiar with nefarious thugs.

Or maybe they are.

 

[Unabogie]

Regarding the shots in the back, one witness tweeted the shooting in real time, and specifically said that Brown was running away, two shots were fired, and then he turned around and put his hands up. The witness was not sure if those two shots were hits or misses. Would it help Wilson's case at all if they were misses? If Brown heard shots, gave up, turned around with his hands up, where he was shot five times, isn't that even more evidence that he wasn't a threat to Wilson? Please explain why the two shots from behind possibly missing changes any of this?

I see that some people have decided that since Mike Brown was not a "gentle giant", they can simply dismiss all of the witnesses as liars and proclaim that his life was forfeit once he stole those cigarettes. I frankly can't understand this way of thinking. But what's really bizarre is how this thread has turned into a group of posters repetitively patting themselves on the back as "true skeptics" while engaging in pure speculation and trying to shout down opposing views, which is, you know, not very skeptical.

 

[johnny karate]

I'd be curious to see that too. If Wilson shot Brown as punishment for theft or even assaulting the shopkeeper, he should be convicted of murder and sentenced to death - the aggravating factor being subversion of Brown's due process rights under color of law.

I think the basis for that argument might be the seemingly prevalent presumption in this thread that once it was determined Brown had just come from committing a robbery, the police officer who shot and killed him was probably justified in doing so.

Personally, I think those dots are a little too far apart to connect. And the rush for others to connect them and demonize this kid feel like some people's need to validate their predetermined conclusions.

 

[Unabogie]

Thank you. That is a good illustration for how the method works to ease cognitive discomfort.

Here's the flaw. The one incident you have in your analysis is being pushed past the limits of its probative value. This happened for two reasons.

1) We would hardly take a week's worth of humdrum from this same actor (or the statement from his mother (?) about him being a "gentle giant") as having the same level of meaning or insight into his character. That's a kind of omission which shows the asymetry in play. This is then coupled with #2.

2) What we see is all there is. We don't hear what was said or know much about the interaction at the counter. The video becomes the reality, gaining enough importance to make a judgement presented as strong evidence to further establish something else. In fact, it is just a snapshot and very weak.

Would the narrative change if we found out the storekeeper had used a racial epithet? Would it change if guy wanted to pay but didn't have proof of age? So long as there are hypothetical additons which would alter the conclusions we extract from the same snip of video, we must accept the footage may not be as informative as it is being presented as being.

I've been in that situation many times, working in a party store in Detroit. The standards of behavior are not quite what one would derive from reading the criminal code. I suggest that someone labeling the guy something like "nefarious thug," based on that video alone is someone who isn't familiar with nefarious thugs.

Are you saying context matters? What kind of True Skeptic are you?

 

[marplots]

Or maybe they are.

What do you suppose was the tip-off? Was it the gang tats, the fact that he was on parole for a murder? That he went back and emptied out the cash register? Was it because he's a big boy with a melanin condition?

Isn't there some logical fallacy about, "I've seen bad actors, and this guy looks like them?"

It's probably easier to see the same thing when the "all cops are bad" comes out for the same reason. At least all cops wear uniforms, so we can more easily lump them into our preferred narrative. "I've seen bad cops, and that looks like a bad cop..."

 

[GWCarver]

Zimmerman was charged by information, so there was no grand jury -- just an affidavit from the special prosecutor.

There is no defense - affirmative or otherwise - in grand jury proceedings. The state's attorney presents evidence to establish whether or not probable cause exists to charge a person with a crime. It's not uncommon for a defense attorney to present evidence to a state's attorney to submit to the grand jury but generally only the state's version of events is heard. Of course, returning indictments is not the only function of a grand jury.

Duties of grand jury.

540.031. A grand jury may make inquiry into and return indictments for all grades of crimes and shall make inquiry into all possible violations of the criminal laws as the court may direct. The grand jury may examine public buildings and report on their conditions.​

​

In this instance, the DA's comments seem to indicate this is an " inquiry into all possible violations of the criminal laws," as the evidence is being presented as the investigation unfolds.

A grand jury's power is fairly broad:

540.240. All grand juries are hereby authorized to find and present bills of indictment for either felonies or misdemeanors committed against the laws of the state.​

A grand jury is made of of 12 voting members and alternates which can serve for 6 months + 60 days. The convening judge has the power to dismiss the jury.

Selection of grand jurors, summons and jury qualification form--notification of persons not qualified to serve--alternate grand jurors--length of service--compensation

4. Those persons summoned for grand jury service shall be placed under the control and supervision of the presiding judge of the circuit court, or a judge designated by the presiding judge, who shall select twelve persons to serve as grand jurors. Alternate grand jurors as determined by the judge shall also be selected, to serve as a grand juror upon the death, disqualification, or inability of one of the persons selected as a regular grand juror. The names of those persons selected as grand jurors and alternate grand jurors shall be deleted from the grand jury list.

5. The presiding judge of the circuit court, or a judge designated by the presiding judge, shall have the authority to convene, recess, and adjourn a grand jury as, in his discretion, he deems necessary, and at times and places as he specifies. No grand jury shall be required to serve for longer than a six-month period, except such term may be extended for a period not to exceed sixty days, solely for the purpose of considering and completing matters already before the grand jury. No new matters shall be presented to the grand jury during its extended service. Nothing contained in this section prevents the convening of another grand jury during such extended service.​

An indictment requires a supermajority vote.

True bill--concurrence by nine grand jurors.

540.250. No indictment can be found without the concurrence of at least nine grand jurors. When so found, and not otherwise, the foreperson of the grand jury shall certify under his hand that such indictment is a true bill, by the following endorsement thereon, thus: "A true bill. A B, foreperson".​

Grand jury proceedings are secret.

Grand juror not to disclose evidence--penalty.

540.320. No grand juror shall disclose any evidence given before the grand jury, nor the name of any witness who appeared before them, except when lawfully required to testify as a witness in relation thereto; nor shall he disclose the fact of any indictment having been found against any person for a felony, not in actual confinement, until the defendant shall have been arrested thereon. Any juror violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a class A misdemeanor.​

Thanks for the grand jury info, but you should be aware that I didn't say Zimmerman's case went before a grand jury. Corey's "Information" was certainly too memorable to ever forget.

 

[marplots]

Are you saying context matters? What kind of True Skeptic are you?

The kind who has raised kids.

 

[12AX7]

You'll are missing the nuance. Brown is being characterized as a violent felon, not because of any legal nuance, but because it's thought to directly expose some character trait. Once we put the label on, anything that happens afterward can fall into some recipe about getting what you deserve. It's an easy way to construct some narrative and fit subsequent events into our heads.

But the guy in the store is reacting to the situation he finds himself in. No aggression from the storekeeper, no "violent felon."

He pushes the guy away. Doesn't hit him, or attack him, pushes him away so he can get out of the door.

I've seen much, much worse in an average game of professional football. Might get someone a penalty, might not. If you are going to confront a shoplifter, I wouldn't say a push was entirely unexpected.

Bully, I would accept. "Violent felon" is recasting to an agenda.

This.

Of course to some, cigar theft is pretty serious, and yes, apparently even warranting death.

However, if you shoot 11 people (including a congresswoman and a judge), you can be taken alive.

Weird, I know.

I think Rude Pundit summed this up best.

Let's Be Clear About Michael Brown

It doesn't matter if he was the biggest drug dealer in the St. Louis metropolitan area.

It doesn't matter if he was the baddest gangsta in the Ferguson 'hood.

It doesn't matter if he was the biggest pimp in the state.

It doesn't matter if he had committed robberies or purse snatchings.

It doesn't matter how many gang signs he flashed with his hands.

It doesn't matter if he said, "**** tha police" every chance he got.

It doesn't matter if he flipped off cops or grabbed his junk while looking at them.

None of that justifies being gunned down by a police officer. None of it.

 

[pakeha]

He's good, posted in another thread about it.

Thanks for the heads-up. Off to read.

 

[marplots]

I'm in the odd position of thinking both sides of the story are as right as is possible to be at this point. Maybe I'm a determinist, or a "stuff happens" defaulter.

 

[johnny karate]

But what's really bizarre is how this thread has turned into a group of posters repetitively patting themselves on the back as "true skeptics" while engaging in pure speculation and trying to shout down opposing views, which is, you know, not very skeptical.

I've noticed this as well.

When the statements from the two independent witnesses were released, I saw a lot of posts about the unreliability of eye witness accounts and the notion that this community would probably stonewall the investigation.

A little later into the thread, someone posted a Youtube video in which two unknown people at the crime scene could be heard discussing what happened. Suddenly, those people became witnesses, witness testimony became reliable, and a theory that Brown was "charging" the officer when he was shot was extrapolated.

Not a peep from the "eye witness accounts are unreliable" crowd.

Then I re-introduced the previous witness statements indicating Brown was shot while in the act of surrendering.

Suddenly, eye witnesses were deemed unreliable again, including by the person who had introduced the Youtube video.

The icing on the cake is in reading the posts by our resident skeptical thought monitors who managed to mock every single "un-skeptical" post alleging the shooting was not justified, but somehow missed the exchange I detailed above.

 

[tyr_13]

Regarding the shots in the back, one witness tweeted the shooting in real time, and specifically said that Brown was running away, two shots were fired, and then he turned around and put his hands up. The witness was not sure if those two shots were hits or misses. Would it help Wilson's case at all if they were misses? If Brown heard shots, gave up, turned around with his hands up, where he was shot five times, isn't that even more evidence that he wasn't a threat to Wilson? Please explain why the two shots from behind possibly missing changes any of this?

I see that some people have decided that since Mike Brown was not a "gentle giant", they can simply dismiss all of the witnesses as liars and proclaim that his life was forfeit once he stole those cigarettes. I frankly can't understand this way of thinking. But what's really bizarre is how this thread has turned into a group of posters repetitively patting themselves on the back as "true skeptics" while engaging in pure speculation and trying to shout down opposing views, which is, you know, not very skeptical.

While I do skip some posters posts so maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen anyone argue the highlighted. The arguments of taking a skeptical eye on eyewitness testimony has been along the traditional lines of the weaknesses in eyewitness testimony.

If you can find someone saying he deserved to die because of the robbery (no one besides defenders are saying he simply 'stole'), then I agree that person is wrong.

I think the basis for that argument might be the seemingly prevalent presumption in this thread that once it was determined Brown had just come from committing a robbery, the police officer who shot and killed him was probably justified in doing so.

Personally, I think those dots are a little too far apart to connect. And the rush for others to connect them and demonize this kid feel like some people's need to validate their predetermined conclusions.

Same as above.

What I have seen is that people have argued against the point that he was a 'gentle giant' specifically. People arguing he was a harmless guy who didn't do much violent or criminal are wrong by the evidence that is available. What he did was strong armed robbery. So those arguing that he probably didn't assault the officer because of his history as a gentle giant and none criminal are of course going to be countered with the fact that he committed violent felony. It's a specific point being countered, not a condemnation of him therefore deserving to be shot. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't, but it isn't argued that he did because he robbed a place. What has been argued is that the possibility he assaulted a police officer makes more sense (but is not proven by) his violent acts leading up to being stopped. Not only does it provide character motivation, but risk motivation, for an attack. Again, this doesn't prove anything, but it does make things more consistent. It certainly doesn't disprove the possibility the shooting may have be justified.

He might have been a violent thug and the shooting still unjustified. He might have assaulted the officer and the shooting still been unjustified. He might have been an otherwise gentle giant who was having a bad day (unlikely in my view) and the shooting still been justified. While I've been disturbed by the ideological blinders by many in this thread, I'm happy to see that so many others are actually keeping these lines separate and waiting to see the physical evidence.

EDIT: And to be clear, those ideological blinders go both ways. Those defending all the police actions and not seeing the problems this town has otherwise have them on too. There are a lot of things to be critical of here.

 

[William Parcher]

Here is the full video from inside the store showing Brown and Johnson and the storekeeper and others. Brown hands Johnson packs of cigars (apparently) and then Johnson soon puts them back on the countertop. Brown then grabs more (and/or the ones that Johnson put back) and then bends down (as if picking something from the floor) and then starts to leave.

I read in an article quoting Johnson that he did put the cigars back and said to Brown "I don't steal." Then he walks out with Brown who did do the stealing and shoving. Johnson may have done what he could at that moment to not be a thief himself, but we don't see him do much of anything to prevent Brown from stealing. We don't know if Johnson knew in advance that Brown was going to steal cigars but was still willing to go into the store with him.

With an outstanding warrant Johnson may not have wanted to risk getting caught in such a brazen situation. Brown seems to proceed without any concern about concealing his theft or his identity. It's weird how bold he was. Maybe he was on drugs causing a loss of all inhibition and caution. If he was still in that state when he encountered Wilson it would be a terribly risky and potentially tragic situation for himself.

 

[casebro]

This.

Of course to some, cigar theft is pretty serious, and yes, apparently even warranting death.

However, if you shoot 11 people (including a congresswoman and a judge), you can be taken alive.

Weird, I know.

I think Rude Pundit summed this up best.

Let's Be Clear About Michael Brown

No. But it would give him a reason to expect himself in big trouble, and proactively charge the cop as the cop was exiting the car. Especially if he was on some kind of belligerence enhancing drug. But it looks like this will all be settled by the grand jury before toxicology come back.

 

[marplots]

What was the outstanding warrant for?

It might be evidence of thuggery after all and I would have to change my opinion.

ETA: I thought it was Brown with the warrant, but maybe it was his buddy?

Second edit: I looked it up. The mighty Internet tells me it was Johnson's warrant, for a theft charge. Ironic that the guy with the theft warrant doesn't want to steal. Maybe he strayed from the path of thuggery himself.

 

[William Parcher]

A little later into the thread, someone posted a Youtube video in which two unknown people at the crime scene could be heard discussing what happened. Suddenly, those people became witnesses, witness testimony became reliable, and a theory that Brown was "charging" the officer when he was shot was extrapolated.

Those should count as variable witness statements which you did not include in your list made yesterday. They don't have to be accurate, the point is that they are different.

We have...

Brown was trying to surrender and got shot.

Brown was charging at the cop and got shot.

 

[casebro]

Lets say we are all half right.

What if Brown charged the car, committing an assault on the officer. Officer takes one shot in the car, in self defense, then attempts to chase down the felon. Shoots at fleeing violent felon. Suspect, turns, hands up..... cop continues to fire "in hot blood".

 

[William Parcher]

Ironic that the guy with the theft warrant doesn't want to steal. Maybe he strayed from the path of thuggery himself.

Maybe he would still steal but not in such an obvious and fearless manner as Brown was doing with the cigars. But then maybe he had given up on stealing even though he still associated with a thief.

 

[William Parcher]

Suspect, turns, hands up..... cop continues to fire "in hot blood".

That sound like murder right there.