Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
qayak said:
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.
Click to expand...

So much straw...
 
stanfr said:
If you just robbed a store, would you be looking to pick a fight with the first cop you spotted? Granted, if you did that you're not thinking rationally to start with, but I don't think you can assume the prior incident predicts future behavior. Brown had a clean record too, he died with one.
Click to expand...


Also, it's interesting to me that if Brown assaulted Wilson out of fear of being busted, why didn't he assault Wilson during the initial encounter? What about the second encounter suggested to Brown that he had been made for the robbery, and not that Wilson was simply confronting them again about the continued street walking?
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
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.
Click to expand...

As usual, a comprehensive and well thought out post (even if I don't agree with all of it.)
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Also, it's interesting to me that if Brown assaulted Wilson out of fear of being busted, why didn't he assault Wilson during the initial encounter? What about the second encounter suggested to Brown that he had been made for the robbery, and not that Wilson was simply confronting them again about the continued street walking?
Click to expand...

Brown probably thought he was in the clear, then realized he wasn't.

Have you ever been pulled over by a cop going in the other direction? Your immediate thought is relief that he passed you. Followed by dread when you see him turn around in the rear-view.

So if Wilson gave Brown a passing order to get out of the street, and then continued on his way, Brown probably though he was OK. Then Wilson stopped again. Brown knew he was Busted.
 
tyr_13 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Because I don't think it is at all clear that Wilson acted appropriately. Because Brown was shot in the arm consistent with his arms being raised. Because Brown was shot multiple times as he was falling.
 
davefoc said:
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.
Click to expand...
Great post Dave. Thank you.
 
davefoc said:
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.
Click to expand...

We will never know. An unfriendly attorney never got to cross examine Wilson. The GJ believes everything he says is the gospel because no one questioned it. They also see the man who's job it is to charge criminals, defending the cop.

Grand Juries are led by a prosecutor: The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case in a criminal trial against an individual accused of breaking the law.

Grand jury proceedings are secret. No judge is present; the proceedings are led by a prosecutor;[16] and the defendant has no right to present his case or (in many instances) to be informed of the proceedings at all.
Click to expand...

The only time Grand Juries hear from defendants is when a prosecutor is fixing the case against a cop, ie.- Ferguson and New York.
 
RandFan said:
Because I don't think it is at all clear that Wilson acted appropriately.
Click to expand...

That's both debatable and there isn't much in the way of evidence that he acted inappropriately.

Because Brown was shot in the arm consistent with his arms being raised.
Click to expand...

That's incorrect based on my readings of the evidence. The only shot that might be consistent with his arm being raised is precluded from that on account of being the one with residue suggesting it was the only one at extremely close range (the hit in the car).

Because Brown was shot multiple times as he was falling.
Click to expand...


And how does that support the incident itself being an example of police abuse of power or even 'us vs them' thinking?
 
qayak said:
We will never know. An unfriendly attorney never got to cross examine Wilson. The GJ believes everything he says is the gospel because no one questioned it. They also see the man who's job it is to charge criminals, defending the cop.
Click to expand...

And yet funny thing, the major thing I have seen complained about one "Why didn't the push him on that outrageous lie" turned out to the truth :rolleyes:

The only time Grand Juries hear from defendants is when a prosecutor is fixing the case against a cop, ie.- Ferguson and New York.
Click to expand...

Any defendant can testify before a GJ, most choose not to do so.
 
RandFan said:
Because Brown was shot in the arm consistent with his arms being raised.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. The wounds to his upper arm are from the front to the back. If his arms were raised, the upper arm would have rotated, and the shot would have been from back to front. The hit to the lower arm has indications of being the first wound, done in the car.

Because Brown was shot multiple times as he was falling.
Click to expand...

Except that for this to be correct, you have to ask, what made him fall?

At this time he had at most 2 shots to the arm. So what made him fall down?

The three shots to head and torso occurred in a volley of four shots over 2 seconds, most likely shots 2, 3, and 4. So why would he have been falling before those shots, in fact Wilson paused for two seconds prior and gave Brown an order to stop, something reported by numerous witnesses. If Brown was falling over, why would he fire again after he ceased firing?
 
PhantomWolf said:
Any defendant can testify before a GJ, most choose not to do so.
Click to expand...

No. They don't even have to be informed about their case being brought before a grand jury.

And why do you think they don't appear? Because a prosecutor will have a field day with them because their defence lawyer can't be there. But bad cops are so special the prosecutor will be their defence lawyer for them. Douchebaggery at its finest.
 
RandFan said:
Are you being intentionally gratuitous and vulgar? What is this supposed to mean?
Click to expand...

It means that suggestion that the prosecutor could obfuscate or emote her way into an indictment ignores the substantial physical evidence that Brown returned toward Wilson, that those witnesses who described that event were describing the reality imposed by that evidence and those who did not were not. It really is that simple.

I'm not certain what is gratuitous or vulgar about that interpretation. Are we supposed to do a PBUH now?
 
qayak said:
We will never know. An unfriendly attorney never got to cross examine Wilson. The GJ believes everything he says is the gospel because no one questioned it. They also see the man who's job it is to charge criminals, defending the cop.

Grand Juries are led by a prosecutor: The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case in a criminal trial against an individual accused of breaking the law.



The only time Grand Juries hear from defendants is when a prosecutor is fixing the case against a cop, ie.- Ferguson and New York.
Click to expand...

There is a problem here in all this kind of talk. The prosecutor's very well may not have believed that sufficient evidence existed to bring Wilson to trial. So should they have acted as advocates against Wilson anyway? I don't think so. They did something reasonable, IMO. They convened a grand jury and assisted with an investigation to determine the facts of the case. That all sounds good to me. Maybe there is an argument that a grand jury shouldn't have been convened if the prosecutors didn't want to proceed as one sided advocates against Wilson, but grand juries are convened at times to investigate without specific charges against individuals. Is using grand juries like this a bad thing? Usually the argument is that the grand juries have powers to force testimony that other entities don't to get at the truth. If the Ferguson GJ operated like that, was that a bad thing?

But, as I said above, if it can be shown that the prosecutors intentionally buried evidence against Wilson or if they intentionally skewed the trial to guarantee no indictment, then I'd agree, they did something unethical and bad. Is there any evidence they did something like that?

ETA: I did agree with stanfr that the DA should have recused himself. Nearly everyone who had any public standing to wight in on this seemed to want the DA to recuse himself. I'm not sure why he didn't, although it is possible to see it as a bit heroic. The ball was in his court and he wasn't going to pass it off to save himself some grief.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom