Michael Brown shooting II

[plague311]

I don't know specifically what the law allows, but I don't see how an armed person walking towards you with his hands up poses a threat that requires the use of deadly force.

And again, now that the ridiculous "bull-rush" meme appears to be dead, the thread by which hangs the supposed threat Brown posed grows ever more slender.

The altercation at the car is the important part. The bull-rush meme, the gentle giant meme, all of the meme's are irrelevant. It boils down to what happened at the vehicle. If Brown punched the cop and actually tried to take his gun then he already had shown himself to be a threat. Case closed.

Threat doesn't just mean to the police officer at that moment, the police officer also had a community to think about.

 

[Mumbles]

Wasn't Dorian caught lying? In fact, weren't there charges pressed because he lied, specifically, to the police.

Nope. I can find no parts of Dorian Johnson lying to the public. He certainly may have been *mistaken* on some matters, as eye witnesses often are, but not lying.

I thought we had confirmed that there actually was an FOIA request from a reporter. So there was at least 1, probably not a flood, but at best that's a hyperbole. We don't know how many people stated to him, or the police department, that they were going to submit an FOIA request. Lots of reports asking a lot of questions and saying a lot of stuff immediately after the incident.

It's confirmed that there were no FOIA requests for the footage. We also know that the police chief, when giving out the video, said that he did so because he was flooded with media requests for it - and then said that it was irrelevent to the shooting, and then walked that back.

Yet you appear to have no issues with other people's statements no matter what their past is, I find that a bit suspect.

Actually, ha Johnson been the only witness, I'd question the idea that the shooting was unwarranted. Fortunately, there are many other witnesses, including a person who live-tweeted it, that confirm Johnson's story.

At least about something as mundane as how many FOIA requests had been submitted.

Here's the point. The police chief is brazenly lying about matters. Thus, what he says is not reliable - and frankly, he should be out of a job.

Whether or not Wilson was justified in shooting and killing Brown is a different issue. The chief told us a story about Brown going for Wilson's gun, but since we know that he is a liar, his word carries no significance. I want to hear what Officer Wilson has to say - because at this point, his word is all that can save him.

So we should probably also throw out Dorian's as well. He's been caught lying.

What was the lie that Johnson supposedly told? I'm still unclear on this.

 

[Mumbles]

So we should probably also throw out Dorian's as well. He's been caught lying.

Let's be clear - name the lie.

Tell us, what Johnson was caught in, in regards to the shooting of Michael Brown. And list your evidence that he was lying.

 

[Unabogie]

So this latest witness brings the tally up to what, seven witnesses who saw basically the same thing?

What's really devastating about this witness is that the crux of any case against the shooting is whether or not Michael Brown was in any way a threat to the officer or others when he was killed. This witness says that Brown was attempting to give up. He actively voiced his intention to surrender by saying:

" ‘OK, OK, OK, OK, OK,’ " the man recounted Brown's words while turning to face Wilson, whose weapon was drawn.

He also says that Brown's hands were raised.

Brown allegedly then moved while keeping his hands in the air.

"He's kind of walking back toward the cop," the witness told the paper.

Like Wilson, Brown moved too, he said. The officer took several steps back and opened fire.

Note what's missing here? Where is Wilson saying "freeze!" or, "get down on the ground!" Darren Wilson made no attempt to give Brown directions or guidance. From the audio, we know this was only a few seconds, so how would Brown, who was simply walking back towards authority, saying "OK", with his hands raised, have handled this differently? If a cop says "get back here", and shoots at you, would walking back be legally construed as an attack? That's absurd. Darren Wilson waited all of three seconds before unloading his gun.

The other thing this witness does is disprove the bull-rushing theory.

Like the other witness recounts, those provided by these two workers fail to paint a picture of Brown charging at Wilson, as the officer's defense has claimed.

Well, this part of the story is incorrect. The bull-rushing story seems to have been lifted from a fake Facebook post, but since Wilson hasn't told his side of the story and the police have so far hidden exactly what he claims caused him to shoot 12 bullets at an unarmed teenager, we're left to speculate as to what possible excuse he'll come up with.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

And yet you even dismissed the other worker who said Wilson shot Brown who had his hands up.

I didn't dismiss him as much as I didn't discuss him:

Phillip Walker, 40, another Canfield Green resident, told the Post-Dispatch on Tuesday that Brown was walking at a steady pace toward Wilson, with his hands up. “Not quickly,” Walker said. “He did not rush the officer.” Walker, who is distantly related to a Post-Dispatch reporter not involved in this report, said the last shot, into the top of Brown’s head, was from about 4 feet away.

“It wasn’t justified because he didn’t pose no threat to the officer. I don’t understand why he didn’t Tase him if he deemed him to be hostile. He didn’t have no weapon on him. I was confused on why he was shooting his rounds off like that into this individual,” Walker said.

The co-worker in the KTVI interview said he “starting hearing pops and when I look over … I seen somebody staggering and running. And when he finally caught himself he threw his hands up and started screaming, ‘OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, OK.’”

He said the officer “didn’t say, ‘Get on the ground.’ He didn’t say anything. At first his gun was down and then he … got about 8 to 10 feet away from him … I heard six, seven shots … it seemed like seven. Then he put his gun down. That’s when Michael stumbled forward. I’d say about 25 feet or so and then fell right on his face.”

I'm not sure what to make of his statements without more clarity.

He also seems to confirm that the 10 shots we have a recording of were fired while brown was advancing on wilson.

He adds the the likelihood that brown put his hands up at some point.

And don't forget Tiffany Mitchell didn't live there. The workers are just as tied to the community as Mitchell is. They probably have a relationship with the owners of the property they were working on.

The workers are from a different county. Mitchell works with crenshaw.

Bottom line, the criteria for determining which witness accounts are more reliable isn't about trying to find the only one that had more than 6 degrees of separation from the victim.

Credibility comes from the witness statements combined with the physical evidence.

So if we combine the recording of the shots, and the witness statements ... we get a bit of a mess, don't we. So we also need to look at factors such as motivation, how memory works, where were they located, who did they talk to and what did they talk about afterward to fill in any gaps, etc.

I'm only saying his assessment of the number of feet involved are wildly inconsistent with all the other evidence. I think we can say he saw Brown moving forward, I don't think Brown moving 25 feet toward Wilson is remotely credible.

I'm comfortable with the generalization that people mostly suck at estimating time and distance.

Shot from the back vs shot in the back, I don't find this particular issue to matter one iota.

No one claims Wilson didn't fire at Brown fleeing. So why does it matter if any witness thought they saw a bullet hit, or a body movement that looked like Brown was hit or whether one bullet did or did not hit from behind? None of those three scenarios matters.

I think it matters. People mentally "fill in" the details they don't see. If they believed they were watching someone shot in the back, they may see things differently than if they believe otherwise. And johnson appears to be straight up full of **** about seeing brown shot in the back.

I don't see anyone in this thread or even in the news media giving much credibility to executed as he lay on the ground. Why are you keeping that accusation alive when no one else is?

Now they aren't. It's about the evolution of the walking back of story.

So you have multiple witnesses saying Brown was giving up, doubled over, or going down when he was shot. You have two witnesses that said Brown was moving toward the officer during the last 4 shots.

No witness has claimed Brown was rushing at Wilson, let alone running toward Wilson with his head down (aka bull-rushing).

You have the kill shot that is at an angle with Brown's head down.

And you have a 3 second gap in shot volleys.

If Brown were moving toward Wilson it would have had to have been in a falling motion when you factor in the timing of the last 4 shots.

If Wilson thought Brown falling toward him was an aggressive move, that is, at a minimum, negligence IMO.

OK. We simply won't agree on what it means - but I believe it's enough for credible self defense. I believe it's enough the GJ won't return a true bill.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

In atypical approach, grand jury in Ferguson shooting receives full measure of case
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ec6ffe-339b-11e4-8f02-03c644b2d7d0_story.html

Instead of telling grand jury members what charges they believe police officer Darren Wilson should face, they are leaving it open-ended for now and involving the grand jury as co-investigators.
...


There must be some very strong evidence on wilsons side.

This strategy appears to me to be a setup for the GJ to return no bill, and then pass off the blame to the GJ.

I'd like to hear an argument for why this is a good method to try to indict wilson if he is clearly guilty of shooting brown when he was not a threat.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, he does not trump all others. But I believe we all weigh the testimony of each witness on our "internal scales" using different criteria; on my scales those who didn't know brown gain more credibility. ...

Interesting, I see the two construction workers are white. Does that make a difference?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The altercation at the car is the important part. The bull-rush meme, the gentle giant meme, all of the meme's are irrelevant. It boils down to what happened at the vehicle. If Brown punched the cop and actually tried to take his gun then he already had shown himself to be a threat. Case closed. ....

So a suspect that is now surrendering is a threat if he was a threat shortly before? I'm unable to follow your thought process here.


On another note, I'm trying to recall, didn't an earlier witness say they heard Brown say "OK OK OK" when he stopped to turn around? I'm having trouble finding the account.

 

[Lerxst]

The altercation at the car is the important part. The bull-rush meme, the gentle giant meme, all of the meme's are irrelevant. It boils down to what happened at the vehicle. If Brown punched the cop and actually tried to take his gun then he already had shown himself to be a threat. Case closed.

Threat doesn't just mean to the police officer at that moment, the police officer also had a community to think about.

Right, some people seem to think Brown is deserving of a mulligan, so to speak. If he did assault the officer then he doesn't necessarily get a "do over", a chance to change his mind with no consequences, at least not in the eyes of the law.

 

[johnny karate]

The altercation at the car is the important part. The bull-rush meme, the gentle giant meme, all of the meme's are irrelevant. It boils down to what happened at the vehicle. If Brown punched the cop and actually tried to take his gun then he already had shown himself to be a threat. Case closed.

No, not case closed.

The altercation in the vehicle and the shooting were two separate incidents.

A guy assualting Wilson and trying to grab his gun is an imminent threat that warrants self-defense with deadly force.

An unarmed guy running away from Wilson does not. Nor does an unarmed guy in the act of surrendering walking towards Wilson.

Threat doesn't just mean to the police officer at that moment, the police officer also had a community to think about.

I am unclear what threat an unarmed person in the act of surrendering poses to the community at large that requires the use of deadly force.

And if we're lowering the standard to include what witnesses are describing took place during this incident, it seems to me we're basically giving police a license to kill.

 

[johnny karate]

There must be some very strong evidence on wilsons side.

This strategy appears to me to be a setup for the GJ to return no bill, and then pass off the blame to the GJ.

I'd like to hear an argument for why this is a good method to try to indict wilson if he is clearly guilty of shooting brown when he was not a threat.

There's going to be fallout and public outcry no matter what the grand jury decides, so I'm not sure why you think this turn of events gives an indication of the outcome.

It's a simple matter of a politically-savvy prosecutor looking to avoid responsibility, and your own link makes that case:

Susan W. McGraugh, a criminal-defense lawyer and a professor at the Saint Louis University School of Law, said that the approach is allowed under the law and that prosecutors sometimes use it in high-profile cases.

“The prosecutor may want cover, which they can get by sharing the responsibility with the grand jury,” McGraugh said. “So when the public reacts to what does or does not happen, they can go back to the fact that the grand jury played a large role in the decision. They can say, ‘We let these jurors, who are your peers, hear what witnesses had to say. This was their decision.’ ”

 

[Lerxst]

No, not case closed.

The altercation in the vehicle and the shooting were two separate incidents.

A guy assualting Wilson and trying to grab his gun is an imminent threat that warrants self-defense with deadly force.

An unarmed guy running away from Wilson does not. Nor does an unarmed guy in the act of surrendering walking towards Wilson.



I am unclear what threat an unarmed person in the act of surrendering poses to the community at large that requires the use of deadly force.

And if we're lowering the standard to include what witnesses are describing took place during this incident, it seems to me we're basically giving police a license to kill.

I assure you that the GJ does not see this as two separate incidents. The entire encounter from the first contact to the point where Michael Brown is shot is seen as one incident. If this goes to trial I can't any prosecutor trying to make that argument.

So what does give the police a license to kill someone in your opinion? What would Michael Brown have had to do before Wilson is justified in shooting him? He had to have had a weapon? He had to have only shot and wounded the officer first? How does Wilson make the decision in a split-second knowing that his life is on the line?

I honestly would like to know as you seem to be giving Michael Brown a license to do whatever he wants as long as he changes his mind and eventually surrenders.

 

[casebro]

All the shooting took place within one minute of Brown attacking the armed officer. He runs away, then turns and comes back, to within 4 feet. Do you think think he has an apology in mind? Or another facial massage?

OJ's low speed car chase was still a chase. Brown's low speed approach is still malicious.

And we still do not have the full tox report. Or his juvenile record.

 

[johnny karate]

Right, some people seem to think Brown is deserving of a mulligan, so to speak. If he did assault the officer then he doesn't necessarily get a "do over", a chance to change his mind with no consequences, at least not in the eyes of the law.

Well, of course he doesn't get a "do over" or a "mulligan".

He gets arrested and prosecuted in accordance with his crimes.

Those seem like reasonable consequences to me. Do you disagree?

 

[johnny karate]

I assure you that the GJ does not see this as two separate incidents. The entire encounter from the first contact to the point where Michael Brown is shot is seen as one incident. If this goes to trial I can't any prosecutor trying to make that argument.

We shall see.

So what does give the police a license to kill someone in your opinion?

An imminent threat.

What would Michael Brown have had to do before Wilson is justified in shooting him?

Be an imminent threat.

He had to have had a weapon?

No.

He had to have only shot and wounded the officer first?

No.

How does Wilson make the decision in a split-second knowing that his life is on the line?

Training.

Being a cop is tough job, no doubt about it. But that doesn't mean cops are immune to criticism or shouldn't be held to a standard in accordance with the power they are given.

I honestly would like to know as you seem to be giving Michael Brown a license to do whatever he wants as long as he changes his mind and eventually surrenders.

This is the second time you've claimed Brown "changed his mind". That implies he had decided to kill Wilson in the first place, which is a mighty big assumption considering the complete and total lack of evidence to support it.

And Brown doesn't have a "license to do whatever he wants". If he committed a crime or crimes, he should be treated like any other accused criminal in accordance with the law, and not be gunned down in the street because, sorry no take-backs.

I don't know if Brown tried to or intended to kill Wilson. And neither do you. He quite possibly assaulted Wilson, and Wilson more than likely felt Brown was an imminent threat during that assault. If Wilson had shot and killed Brown during an assault, I would feel this was a pretty open-and-shut case of self-defense.

But Wilson didn't do that.

He shot and killed Brown after Brown fled, and - by all known witness accounts - while Brown was in the act of surrendering.

If one were inclined to start with the conclusion that Wilson was justified in killing Brown and worked backwards from there, all sorts of scenarios could be dreamt up that would make an unarmed person with his hands up seems like an imminent threat.

But I am not so inclined. So down this particular rabbit-hole I shall not be traveling.

 

[Kestrel]

A police officer is allowed to use lethal force when lethal force is necessary to prevent death or serious injury That permission expires when the the threat of death or serious injury is no longer imminent.

An unarmed man raising his hands in surrender is no longer an imminent threat.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Going to answer this post a bit at a time because the board is going down soon.

I didn't dismiss him as much as I didn't discuss him ... The workers are from a different county ...

And they are white? Just asking if you considered that.

[snipped witness account that does not support Wilson was threatened by Brown]

Yet you word your conclusion:

brown was advancing on wilson.

I do not believe "moving toward" and "advancing on" are defined the same.

I believe the witnesses said moving toward, not advancing on.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Guess I didn't have as much to say as I thought.

.... So if we combine the recording of the shots, and the witness statements ... we get a bit of a mess, don't we.

I don't. I think the evidence and the witnesses line up to confirm at a minimum Wilson delivered the kill shot to a man that was not posing a threat.

.... OK. We simply won't agree on what it means - but I believe it's enough for credible self defense. I believe it's enough the GJ won't return a true bill.

You have a cop who is just shooting and not one witness who saw him order Brown to the ground, order him to put his hands up, none of that.

You have a kill shot to the top of the head.

You have multiple witnesses saying Brown was not posing a threat.

So is your entire premise that Wilson was fine shooting out of uncontrolled fear simply because Brown may have moved toward him as he was surrendering?

If Brown were walking back toward Wilson to surrender and Wilson gave Brown no instructions not to, no instructions to stop, to get down, nothing, you still think there is doubt Wilson did anything wrong?

How is that reasonable?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There must be some very strong evidence on wilsons side. ...
I'd like to hear an argument for why this is a good method to try to indict wilson if he is clearly guilty of shooting brown when he was not a threat.

These two sentences seem contradictory to me.

The assumption is the prosecutor is biased in Wilson's favor. While we have no evidence yet that is the case here, we do know there was ample reason for the prosecutor to recuse himself and he did not.

I can't draw any conclusions yet what is being presented to the GJ, and in what manner is it being presented because we have no idea how fair the process is. We will have to wait and see.

As for evidence for Wilson, you have nothing to base that on at all.

 

[This is The End]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ec6ffe-339b-11e4-8f02-03c644b2d7d0_story.html

Sounds like a fair decision.

But, as the article points out, the way current laws are written are quite favorable to officers that use excessive force. Quite favorable.