Michael Brown shooting II

[NoahFence]

They're definitely different! Where they are the same is that in each case the deceased made actions supposedly defiant to the cop, refusing to comply with orders. That's why people are defending the cops in both those other cases. The only real difference in that respect is that there were videos in that cases. I strongly suspect that if there were a video in the Brown case, you wouldn't be hearing that word 'charge' nearly as much as you're hearing it now.

Supposedly defiant to the cop? You think there's room for that word after he ATTACKED the cop?


/lost cause.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You clearly don't know the difference or you wouldn't be asking me ridiculous questions.

It's ridiculous to ask you to back up your claims ?

I'm not making the claim that the ADA actually was his defense counsel,

No, but pragmatically there is no difference:
"the prosecutor basically acted as Wilson's defense counsel"

I'm pointing out what most of the lawyers and judicial experts have already noted, that the ADA treated Wilson with kid gloves, and the testimony was all direct testimony, with the ADA actually guiding Wilson on critical points that would help to exonerate him.

As opposed to all the grand juries where the prosecutor conducts a direct examination, followed by a cross examination ?

Perhaps If I can find some spare time Ill come up with a lengthy list of examples of this, since you don't seem to be able to recognize them by yourself. If he is ostensibly the person you are seeking to bring charges against (clearly they had no intention to...) then they wouldn't have treated him that way.

I get your point - you don't believe the ADA was trying to get an indictment. I don't either. If this was not a such a high profile case, I doubt it would have been brought the grand jury.

What I don't agree with is your claim that "the prosecutor basically acted as Wilson's defense counsel"

However, you may convince me if you actually provide that list of lengthy examples to back up your claim.

How familiar are you with Grand Juries?

Familiar enough to participate in this discussion.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Why wouldn't you indict in the Crawford case? He was talking on his phone when he was gunned down. In no way could he have been perceived as an immediate threat.

That thread is over there ->

 

[Lerxst]

Supposedly defiant to the cop? You think there's room for that word after he ATTACKED the cop?


/lost cause.

It is indeed a lost cause. Of all the conversations I have had with those that do not believe the shooting was justified, I can find no one, on this forum or elsewhere, that can come up with a scenario where Wilson was justified. Not even a hypothetical one. "Unarmed black teenager shot by white cop" is all that enters their brain and any attempt to discuss known facts is filtered out or hand-waved away.

 

[RandFan]

For clarification - the implication is you don't accept the validity of the grand jury system ?

I've already said I accept the decision. I accepted the OJ verdict also. I'm bothered by aspects of this case that's all.

 

[RandFan]

What is the evidence for that?

There was an altercation (this often angers cops). Brown fled. Is it possible that Wilson was angry? Why would Brown charge an armed officer after fleeing him?

None of this demonstrates anything conclusively. It's reason for us to have some humility and admit that we honestly cannot know what happened.

 

[RandFan]

You are confusing two different shots. The shot that exited through the chin was the one that hit right above the eye. The second head shot, which was the fatal one, struck the top of his head.

The blue line is the first, the red line the second, fatal, shot to the head.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=781&pictureid=9042
(Drawn from autopsy interview and illustration information)

Thanks Mike!

 

[Giz]

If you just robbed a store, would you be looking to pick a fight with the first cop you spotted?

I take it that "resisting arrest" is not a thing in your world?

I don't think you can assume the prior incident predicts future behavior. Brown had a clean record too, he died with one.

We are unaware of Wilson having any prior 'incidents'. And had received commendations as a model officer.

Brown is on video committing a strong-arm robbery and had taken enough drugs to have impaired judgement.

And you continue to treat the two people as equally likely to commit a violent criminal incident. Really?

 

[RandFan]

Again, I'd tend to agree with you if not for Wilson's record. Cops that fly off the handle at little things don't have commendations and clean records. With back up on the way, Wilson had no reason to fly off the handle, all he needed to do was keep the two talking until back up got there. Grabbing and pulling Brown into the SVU would have been a crazy action. Wilson was belted in still, so he had no way to control Brown. The sort of rage that it would require to demonstrate that sort of idiocy would have been noted pretty quick in the force, and yes I know the claims that the cops close ranks etc. It's not true, especially when the officer involved is known as a loose cannon. There have been plenty of cops fired for doing things similar to what he would have had to have done for the confrontation to have been started by him.

Again the witnesses are fairly consistent that Wilson ordered Brown to stop multiple times prior to firing the fatal shots. That's rather inconsistence with a cop that has lost it and is acting in anger, but very consistent with a cop who is still trying desperately to control the situation and failing because the other person is refusing to cooperate.

Thanks Phantom, I'll re-read the testimony and give the case a fresh look. One small thing, there are cases of good cops going their entire career and then doing something stupid. That's not outside of the realm of possibility.

Now, I will say that those who feel the weight of the evidence makes it more likely than not that the incident transpired the way Wilson says are reasonable.

What I don't accept are those who act as if they know. Things are not always as they appear. We have video evidence of other incidents that likely would have turned out very differently had there been no video.

I can think of 3 off the top of my head where the video does not at all match what eyewitnesses said and/or what the police have said.

Don't be so certain you know what happened when you were not there. If you want to draw a conclusion then that's fine. That's your right. The system came to a conclusion and I accept that justice is a system and not an outcome. Sometimes we need to discuss and improve that system.

 

[Cain]

I was thinking it would be the other guy, not the American.

I love you, man.

 

[Mike!]

I can accept that Brown attacked a cop (not sure whether the attack was provoked or not). What I find hard to accept is that he had to die for it. Most of the Wilson supporters here find that extremely easy to accept. Given your (correct) analysis of those other cases I'm surprised you so easily think Brown deserved to die.

I don't believe anyone here thinks Brown "deserved to die" at all. There are several of us who firmly believe it was his own actions that day lead to his death however.
Perhaps, while you continue to busy yourself exploring all the potential alternatives Darrin Wilson should have chose at that confrontational moment, you may want to commit a moment or two to contemplate the alternative decisions Michael Brown could have made that day that would have avoided the unfortunate conclusion of his very existence.

 

[Lerxst]

There was an altercation (this often angers cops). Brown fled. Is it possible that Wilson was angry? Why would Brown charge an armed officer after fleeing him?

None of this demonstrates anything conclusively. It's reason for us to have some humility and admit that we honestly cannot know what happened.

You are clearly concerned with whether Wilson was angry or not. That's fine, but where are you going with this? Does his anger somehow create a scenario where its not possible to justify the shooting? How do we expect someone to react to this sort of situation?

Both men were likely angry. Is one or the other not allowed to be angry in this situation? If not, which one and why?

 

[RandFan]

I don't believe anyone here thinks Brown "deserved to die" at all. There are several of us who firmly believe it was his own actions that day lead to his death however.
Perhaps, while you continue to busy yourself exploring all the potential alternatives Darrin Wilson should have chose at that confrontational moment, you may want to commit a moment or two to contemplate the alternative decisions Michael Brown could have made that day that would have avoided the unfortunate conclusion of his very existence.

Brown actions directly resulted in his death. His actions might very well be solely responsible for his death. The problem is this, to what extent if any does "us vs them" play a role in these incidents? Is there some degree of bias and contempt that results in more people unnecessarily dying? Not every incident in which an armed suspect is confronted by police ends in multiple shots fired while the suspect/perpetrator is falling to the ground.

Officers can and do try to save the lives of armed citizens who are a known threat. Is it fair for citizens like me to question whether or not there are larger underlying considerations and that we might consider more training and different policies along with improved community relations? Or is the risk to hard working and decent officers simply too great and so long as it's plausible that an officer is in danger he or she has every right to use deadly force?

 

[RandFan]

You are clearly concerned with whether Wilson was angry or not. That's fine, but where are you going with this? Does his anger somehow create a scenario where its not possible to justify the shooting? How do we expect someone to react to this sort of situation?

Both men were likely angry. Is one or the other not allowed to be angry in this situation? If not, which one and why?

If I were the office I damn well would have been angry. I don't know if the officer acted professionally or treated Brown with contempt. Regardless, given that Brown had committed a robbery I'm less likely to by sympathetic to Brown.

It's my fault for failing to adequately explain my position. So let me try again.

1. It's possible that Wilson acted out of anger and shot Brown unnecessarily.
2. It's possible that Wilson was not in fear of his life the moment he fired multiple shots at Brown.

I have tried to be as clear as can be and I have said over and over, "I don't know". The case bothers me. Having honestly tried to see this case from every possible perspective I only get back cognitive dissonance. I'm not at all confident that this wasn't someone who lost it, had the opportunity, and took another life.


That said, I accept the GJ decision. I accept our justice system. I simply think that right or wrong, there is a perception that law enforcement has moved away from protecting and serving and see citizens more as enemy combatants than fellow Americans.



I have no definitive data or statistics to justify my perceptions or intuition. I have searched and found data on both sides of the proposition. At this time I simply think we need to have a national dialog and consider the direction that law enforcement is headed. I don't think we should be silent when people are dying and citizens are telling us that there are real problems between the police and the community.

 

[tyr_13]

There was an altercation (this often angers cops). Brown fled. Is it possible that Wilson was angry? Why would Brown charge an armed officer after fleeing him?

None of this demonstrates anything conclusively. It's reason for us to have some humility and admit that we honestly cannot know what happened.

Yes, altercations often anger or result form the anger of all parties involved. And?

Yes it was possible Wilson was angry. What is the evidence he was angry? What is the relevance of if he was angry? He was also probably afraid, and that has evidence. Also, what actions were taken has evidence.

Why would Brown charge an armed officer? As you say, I can't be sure why but I can say that the evidence indicates that he did. Was he angry? Probably. Was he afraid? Very probably. Those are reasons to charge. What do these probabilities have to do with an indictment? Very little. What one can prove in this case with evidence is the entire point.

We can know to a reasonable degree of certainty some of what happened, and even more about what almost positively didn't happen. This has nothing to do with humility, but following the evidence. Even more than that, recognizing that even is the case is exactly as you say no provable then the grand jury is exactly right to not send it to trial. You don't send unprovable cases to trial.

As I've said before, I think the police of Ferguson showcased some major abuses of power in their handling of the initial protests, aggressiveness and arresting of journalists, of their no-fly zone implementation, and a litany of other ways. However, there isn't quality evidence that Wilson committed a crime, shot Brown in cold blood, or even killed him in hot blood. The injustices of the police here and elsewhere don't mean that Wilson was in the wrong.

EDIT: From your above post it looks like we are largely in agreement, except that I can't see how this specific incident is useful in the discussion of police us-vs-them besides examining the reactions to the event.

 

[davefoc]

I don't believe anyone here thinks Brown "deserved to die" at all. There are several of us who firmly believe it was his own actions that day lead to his death however.
So, while you continue to busy yourself exploring all the potential alternatives Darrin Wilson should have chose at that moment, you may want to commit a moment or two to contemplate the same alternatives Michael Brown could have made that day that would have avoided the unfortunate conclusion of his very existence.

Of course Brown's actions on the day of the shooting led to his death. Your suggestion that anybody here thinks otherwise suggests that you have not understood the issues being raised in this thread.

You don't seem to like the idea that alternative actions by Wilson would also not have led to Brown's death and at least some of those actions might be problematic. It is much easier to identify with a cop bravely doing his duty than a young man who has just committed a serious crime. And from there it is much easier to see everything that Wilson did as proper.

But was everything that Wilson did proper? As Randfan has pointed out several times, nobody knows except Wilson. Did he politely confront the two guys walking in the street and then choose to ignore them when they disrespected him and continued to walk in the street? The Arman video suggests that this is unlikely. Did Wilson truthfully represent the situation? Again the Arman video suggests that Wilson probably didn't.

When Wilson backed up and confronted the Brown and Johnson the second time was he really just trying to delay them until backup arrived? I doubt it. The more likely situation is that he was pissed and wanted his chance at some vengeance. He recklessly put himself in danger by putting himself right next to two potentially violent felons. What did he hope to accomplish by putting himself right next to Brown and Wilson? If they were truly dangerous felons his actions put himself in grave danger as he gave himself no maneuvering room if something bad happened.

So then what happens? His poor decision to place himself in unnecessary danger had allowed Brown to almost overwhelm him in a fight. And was Wilson completely innocent here for the initiation of the fight? Maybe not. Brown is likely to have been panicked by the car coming rapidly towards him. So Brown, a young man, who are prone to mistakes of judgement, made a horrible decision to attack Wilson. But did Wilson bear some responsibility here? Again as RandFan has pointed out nobody can know since nobody can know exactly what happened but if Wilson was unnecessarily hostile as he was in the Arman video and then Wilson drove his car in a way that caused Brown to panic then I think Wilson's poor decisions were a definite contributor to a bad situation. ETA: It is also likely that Wilson was the first to grab for the gun. Brown probably made the horrible decision to assault Wilson, and then when Wilson attempts to get at his gun the stakes ratchet up again in a way that forces Brown to make a life or death decision to stop Wilson from getting his gun or to allow Wilson to get his gun and potentially shoot Brown. So Brown is guilty of assaulting somebody that has disrespected him and driven his vehicle in close proximity to him but Brown's decision to go for Wilson's gun may have been forced on him.

And then Wilson sets out on foot to chase Brown. Was that a good decision? Wilson argued that it was because he had just confronted a violent assailant and he didn't want another policemen to need to deal with him unaware. I buy that a bit. Still was it a good decision given that backup was near by and that arresting Brown at this point was probably going to require shooting him since given the situation it was unlikely that Brown was going to surrender voluntarily? I don't know, but I would say his decision was at least questionable.

And finally there is the shooting. I tend to believe most of the Wilson supporters here. I think they have made good use of the physical evidence to suggest a likely scenario although if I understand the arguments it seems much more likely to me that the final shots to Brown occur as he is falling down. Could Wilson have made different decisions in this encounter? Again as RandFan has said nobody knows exactly what went on here, but it certainly seems at least possible that once Brown had sustained significant harm from bullets striking him that Wilson could have retreated more to reduce the need to keep firing. ETA: It is also possible that Brown makes some sort of an attempt to surrender between the time the shooting starts and the time it ends. Again nobody knows but I don't think the physical evidence precludes that.

Lastly, I am in complete agreement with people that argue that there was insufficient evidence to indict Wilson. If put in the normal context of a trial based on reasonable doubt this case is awash in it. I also don't agree with stanfr's criticism of the DA for acting as a defense attorney. The two sides in a criminal prosecution do not have symmetrical motivations. The prosecution side is supposed to be driven by the pursuit of truth and justice. The defense side is primarily driven by his client's interest. So the DA used the GJ to get all the facts available out there and let somebody else make the decision as to whether to prosecute Wilson or not. I don't see any ethical violations here unless the DA intentionally obfuscated the facts or buried facts that were harmful to Wilson. If Stanfr could show that the DA did that I would be in agreement with Stanfr that the DA acted inappropriately.

 

[theprestige]

[...] I don't think you can assume the prior incident predicts future behavior. Brown had a clean record too, he died with one.

It sounds to me like you are saying that Brown's record is relevant, as long as we pretend it was clean. If we must acknowledge that his record wasn't clean, then we should at least pretend it's not relevant.

 

[dudalb]

I think most of us when we say anything about "the neighborhood" or "the community" are referring to a SECTION of Ferguson. Darren Wilson himself, and who would know better, described what we're talking about.

He said that the area this happened in was a particular part of Ferguson that had an anti-cop attitude and was essentially dangerous, hostile territory for cops.

And yea, that figures. Apparently he was in a Section 8 cluster or something similar. That's my understanding.

And by the way? People can speak about the woes of gentrification and historically black neighborhoods being pushed aside and whites moving in and taking over (even though they're actually reclaiming areas that white people built and lived before being pushed out a century+ ago), and they're able to get away with complaining about this on national media (Spike Lee is the biggest example but I've seen several other AA commentators gripe about it too, I believe Marc Lamont Hill and Cornell West were among them, I could be wrong.) And the people in these neighborhoods themselves can openly voice their dissatisfaction with the racial makeup of their area changing.

Yet, Ferguson has rapidly transformed from being nearly all white to mostly black, and not that long ago.

What of the longtime white residents of Ferguson who didn't like the demographic change in their city? What of the people who didn't like the increase in crime, and now becoming the sort of place where businesses are burned and people are killed and stuffed in car trunks during riots, and the police are hated and they, white people, are openly hated?

Do white people not have a right to say "hey we lived here, we liked it, and we don't like this demographic change" ? Nobody would deny any other group the right to be upset and express their frustration with that. Apparently whites are the one group who are expected to shut up, pretend they aren't a group with their own interests, and accept and even embrace their own displacement.

I disagree with that.

I think somebody has shown they have "issues" with blacks in general.

 

[qayak]

It sounds to me like you are saying that Brown's record is relevant, as long as we pretend it was clean. If we must acknowledge that his record wasn't clean, then we should at least pretend it's not relevant.

His record isn't relevant. Even the robbery is irrelevant as the office didn't know he had committed it, at best he might have known he was as suspect. Being a suspect in the theft of a few cigarettes doesn't justify executing a young man.

 

[NoahFence]

His record isn't relevant. Even the robbery is irrelevant as the office didn't know he had committed it, at best he might have known he was as suspect. Being a suspect in the theft of a few cigarettes doesn't justify executing a young man.

For the love of FSM take the blinders off.