Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wolrab said:
IMO when all is said and done, Wilson had every right to shoot Brown because Brown was attacking him in the vehicle. It really doesn't matter if he was going for the gun or not.
Click to expand...

That basically mirrors Wilson's claim -- that he was authorized to use lethal force by virtue of Brown's initial punches through the door of the patrol vehicle.

MS. WHIRLEY: In your mind him grabbing the gun is what made the difference where you felt you had to use a weapon to stop him?

OFC. WILSON: Yes. Once he was hitting me in the face, that enough, was in my mind to authorize the use of force.

MS. WHILRLEY: Okay. So if he would not have grabbed your gun while he was hitting you in the face, everything was the same, but he would not have grabbed the gun, you still would have used deadly force?

OFC. WILSON: My gun was already being presented as a deadly force option while he was hitting me in the face.​

Vol. 5, pp. 236-237
 
Newtons Bit said:
Why would my experience be relevant? There are laboratories that say they can do both, at the same time, with firearms.



ETA: hey look, here's another article that says do both.
Click to expand...


Based on the articles you cite - I am wrong and you are correct.
DNA sampling has come a long way since I was a cop.

They can and should have done both for two reasons:
1 - IF they had found Brown's fingerprints on the firearm - case closed.
2 - Eliminate any accusations of poor police work or cover-up.

I do not think this exonerates Brown or makes Wilson a liar - but it leaves room for criticism and doubt which is what a good investigator tries to avoid.
 
rockinkt said:
1 - IF they had found Brown's fingerprints on the firearm - case closed.
Click to expand...
The case was closed the moment witnesses corroborated Wilson's claim of being assaulted by Brown. The question of whether Brown actually got his hand on the gun during the violence is entirely incidental.

2 - Eliminate any accusations of poor police work or cover-up.
Click to expand...
You can't be serious.
 
theprestige said:
The case was closed the moment witnesses corroborated Wilson's claim of being assaulted by Brown. The question of whether Brown actually got his hand on the gun during the violence is entirely incidental.


You can't be serious.
Click to expand...

Of course I'm serious. Since there are plenty of people on this forum and in the news debating the fact that Brown went for Wilson's gun - the issue is important.

An assault on a police officer is not enough to justify a shooting in each and every case. Having no doubt that Brown's hands were on the firearm would eliminate any question as to whether or not this was a justified shooting.

DNA on the firearm is not conclusive proof that he handled the firearm. Unlike latent prints - there are many ways in which Brown's DNA could have been found on the firearm without Brown actually touching the firearm.
As was mentioned - blood spatter or blood transference is a possible explanation for DNA on the weapon.
So is cell transference from Wilson's hand if he fought off Brown and then touched his firearm with that same hand.
DNA transference is very easy. That is why contamination of DNA is something that has to be guarded against by strict procedural controls.

Again - since there are allegations of poor police work and cover-up - doing everything to the highest standard would have eliminated a lot of that.

You also seem to be missing this important part of my original post:
I do not think this exonerates Brown or makes Wilson a liar - but it leaves room for criticism and doubt which is what a good investigator tries to avoid.
 
rockinkt said:
Of course I'm serious. Since there are plenty of people on this forum and in the news debating the fact that Brown went for Wilson's gun - the issue is important.

An assault on a police officer is not enough to justify a shooting in each and every case. Having no doubt that Brown's hands were on the firearm would eliminate any question as to whether or not this was a justified shooting.
Click to expand...

While I agree with your point that this should have been done, I do believe that what the prestige was getting at was that even if fingerprints had been found, people would still be questioning it. Perhaps even just as many people. And if the fingerprints had not been found, which would not have proved one way or the other if Brown's hands were on or went for the gun, then they would be harping on how it proves they were not.

The race politics and police problems surrounding this event have basically ensured that there would be a sizable minority who will always deny the shooting was justified. It simply isn't a question of evidence. There would be criticism and doubt one way or the other. I think you're both kind of talking past each other.

Again, I agree that it still should have been done as it would have made unreasonable doubt even more clearly unreasonable.
 
rockinkt said:
DNA on the firearm is not conclusive proof that he handled the firearm.
Click to expand...
The gun shot wound on the thumb is conclusive proof that his thumb was 1" or less from the muzzle when the gun was fired. Which means the rest of his fingers were on the gun.
 
rockinkt said:
Of course I'm serious. Since there are plenty of people on this forum and in the news debating the fact that Brown went for Wilson's gun - the issue is important.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but this begs the question that people on this forum and in the news debate important issues. I maintain that the real importance of the issue is determined not by who debates it where, but by how central it is to convicting or acquitting Wilson of a crime.

An assault on a police officer is not enough to justify a shooting in each and every case. Having no doubt that Brown's hands were on the firearm would eliminate any question as to whether or not this was a justified shooting.
Click to expand...
This is true, but this isn't the only method by which doubt can be eliminated. For example, the Grand Jury's doubt was eliminated by considering the preponderance of other evidence, without this particular question being answered.

DNA on the firearm is not conclusive proof that he handled the firearm. [...]
Click to expand...
Agreed. And in this case, proving that Brown handled the firearm was not necessary.

Again - since there are allegations of poor police work and cover-up - doing everything to the highest standard would have eliminated a lot of that.
Click to expand...
This right here is the claim that caused me to question the seriousness of your inquiry. Do you really think that the people who doubt the police's competence and honest, and the people who still believe Wilson was wrong, would change their tune based on the outcome of the fingerprint test?

You also seem to be missing this important part of my original post:
I do not think this exonerates Brown or makes Wilson a liar - but it leaves room for criticism and doubt which is what a good investigator tries to avoid.
Click to expand...
No, I noted that part. It's absurd to think that doing that test would have foreclosed any significant area of doubt or complaint about this case.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
No, I noted that part. It's absurd to think that doing that test would have foreclosed any significant area of doubt or complaint about this case.
Click to expand...

As someone who thought it should go to a public trial, I've always been pretty clear that Brown's fingerprints on Wilson's gun would totally change my mind - and that finding no prints wouldn't change my mind in either direction. And while the "bulking up" thing makes me think about how his story apparently changed, that could easily be time changing his memory of events.
 
tyr_13 said:
While I agree with your point that this should have been done, I do believe that what the prestige was getting at was that even if fingerprints had been found, people would still be questioning it. Perhaps even just as many people. And if the fingerprints had not been found, which would not have proved one way or the other if Brown's hands were on or went for the gun, then they would be harping on how it proves they were not.

The race politics and police problems surrounding this event have basically ensured that there would be a sizable minority who will always deny the shooting was justified. It simply isn't a question of evidence. There would be criticism and doubt one way or the other. I think you're both kind of talking past each other.

Again, I agree that it still should have been done as it would have made unreasonable doubt even more clearly unreasonable.
Click to expand...

A very reasonable explanation. Thank you.
 
rockinkt said:
Ummm...No.
Click to expand...
Ummmm, yes. Or perhaps you'll like to explain why your opinion is more informed than the St. Louis medical examiner's?

I predict no explanation will be forthcoming, and we may even get a conspiracy theory!
 
Mumbles said:
Certainly, Wilson. It would be understandable, but an extremely bad, idea, for Brown to then grab the gun, however.
Click to expand...
Understandable only in the context that Brown was going to do whatever it took to avoid being arrested, up to and including murdering Wilson with his own gun.
 
rockinkt said:
An assault on a police officer is not enough to justify a shooting in each and every case. Having no doubt that Brown's hands were on the firearm would eliminate any question as to whether or not this was a justified shooting.
[/B]
Click to expand...

Once St Michael punched Wilson and reached for the gun, the shooting was justified. Whether he actually touched the gun is completely irrelevant.

If the Apostles keep digging, they should be in China soon.
 
I can understand if Brown tried to push the gun out of the way so he wouldn't get shot in the face. He honestly could have been doing just that. How would Wilson be able to differentiate between that and Brown going for his gun? Of course not attacking Wison was probably a better way to go.
 
Wolrab said:
I can understand if Brown tried to push the gun out of the way so he wouldn't get shot in the face. He honestly could have been doing just that. How would Wilson be able to differentiate between that and Brown going for his gun?
Click to expand...

Well, that's the point. It would be impossible for Wilson to know the difference - and while police shouldn't have an absolute right to use force, that would be enough for me to say "Yeah, I get it. It's a tragedy, but I fully understand why you felt the need to shoot. Let him go, reinstate him in the local PD."

...

Except, given their behavior in the aftermath of the shooting, I also believe the Ferguson PD should be disbanded entirely, so...hm.

Of course not attacking Wison was probably a better way to go.
Click to expand...

And that's why I said the trial should be public, and run ethically. Wilson's union would certainly cover his legal expenses - that's part of what they do - so he loses nothing. No "witnesses" who didn't actually witness anything get put on the stand. Every actual witness gets cross-examined. But the grand jury trial was a farce, and that's no good for anyone.

I simply didn't, and don't, see this case as clear-cut. It's not like the John Crawford III case, where the cops just jumped from behind a corner and gunned him down. It's also not like the various cases where an actual gun was recovered from the suspect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom