Michael Brown shooting II

[This is The End]

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.

Let me fix that for you to what we really know:

All the shooting took place within one minute of Brown attacking the armed officer. He runs away, shots are fired, then turns around and does [we do not know for sure what he does after turning around], more shots are fired, [we do know know the exact distance].

Sounds a bit different than the way you say it...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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

Not to me. Why would it ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No, not case closed.

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

A guy assaulting 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.<SNIP>

I believe the hilited will be the problem. You shouldn't continue approaching if you are surrendering.

Because if you continue approaching, that can reasonably be perceived as a threat. Especially if there was another person to also be wary of, one who is now out of sight, potentially coming up behind you.

In a grey area like this, I believe the benefit of the doubt will almost always go to a police officer.

I also don't agree the assault at the vehicle and what followed will not be perceived as 2 separate incidents.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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:

I see the responsibility-avoidance as 1 sided. If there is an indictment and a trial, I don't see that causing a public outcry.

So then, the reason to let the GJ make the decision is because you don't believe you have enough to get an indictment.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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.

So lying requires intent, otherwise it's a mistake.

Do you give this benefit to the police chief as well ?

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.

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.

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.

So the police chief, who quite likely doesn't actually handle FOI requests and was probably just told that there were numerous requests, is brazenly lying.

Johnson, who was right there with brown, is simply mistaken.

I see a double standard there.

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.

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

Johnson already has a history of lying to the police. Why isn't that enough ?

But here are two blatant lies disproven by video evidence:

DJ: He was in the street for three hours or four before they initially covered his body. They arrived on the scene but they still havent put any cover around or over his body.
FF: What happened to the police officer? Do you know, before you left the scene, if he left the scene?
DJ: At the time, I was trying to get to a safe spot. So, I was more trying to get away from the officer then trying to see where hes going. But, when I returned to the scene, not three or four minutes after, I saw my friend still in the street, I saw the police car he was in the truck
– but I did not see the officer anymore.
FF: And so nobody came to respond for Mikes body for three of four hours?
DJ: No paramedics came. No one gave him a chance to live

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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:

He also says that Brown's hands were raised.

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.

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.

You claimed earlier in the thread the 10 shot recording was proof wilson shot 6 shots at brown while he was running away.

How does that scenario work with the story from these two witnesses ?

 

[casebro]

Let me fix that for you to what we really know:





Sounds a bit different than the way you say it...

We hear from more and more witnesses that he was coming towards the officer, as the officer was backing away. (agree?)

Final shot was at four feet. (agree?)

All we have to go on is that the mass media tells us.

But some are still stuck on the "executed while surrendering" meme. Which was published by the journos without any investigation into other views.

And the real question here is "Is there any chance that Wilson will be found guilty of any murderous legality beyond a reasonable doubt?"

Nope. No chance.

 

[casebro]

THC presence- "Unnamed source" I suppose, but we get nothing about the rest of the tox panel. Remember those tox reprts were supposed to take three weeks, and I am sure they are held in a small group. The morgue janitor , as a frinstance, did not see them.

I wonder if the "un-named source" is somebody that handled the body, and merely smelled pot on him/ his clothes?

So I am still waiting for the full tox panel to be published. PCP or Meth could have made Momma's Gentle Giant into a murderous thug. And explained a lot about his mis-behavior.

 

[johnny karate]

I believe the hilited will be the problem. You shouldn't continue approaching if you are surrendering.

Because if you continue approaching, that can reasonably be perceived as a threat. Especially if there was another person to also be wary of, one who is now out of sight, potentially coming up behind you.

Seems like important information that a trained officer of the law would know to communicate to a suspect in these situations. You know, to prevent any needless deaths.

I guess we'll have to wait and see if any evidence supports Wilson taking this prudent and reasonable course of action as opposed to just emptying his gun in short order into an unarmed guy with his hands up. Because so far, none of it does.

In a grey area like this, I believe the benefit of the doubt will almost always go to a police officer.

We shall see.

I also don't agree the assault at the vehicle and what followed will not be perceived as 2 separate incidents.

Okay then.

 

[plague311]

So this strikes me as a bit odd. The petitions to get Michael Brown's juvenile records has been denied. I don't know a whole lot about records, but there was no reason given for the denial. Does anyone know what the reasoning behind that would be? If they confirmed there was no high-end felony convictions, why not release the records? I thought it was public information once a person was deceased. I can only assume they're using it for the ongoing investigation? Or presenting it to the grand jury?

Link

 

[Cylinder]

And there's also this - I'm simply stating that the police chief is not to be trusted. Really, we already knew that, since he's been caught in lies before. I'm not stating that Wilson is a murderer, but I *am* stating that the chief's recounting of events is worthless, that Wilson himself deserves a fair chance to say what happened, and that all evidence should be examined. But as of right now, this simply reinforces the fact that the chief's recounting of what Wilson did should e ignored.

There were media asking for the video by any objective measure. A lot is a subjective phrase, so that definition is in the eyes of the beholder. I submit a lot may differ a bit between a medium-sized police department and, say, the FBI. But that's just hair-splitting. One is "too many".

Every request that specified incident reports related to the shooting of Brown of variations on that theme would have required FPD to release the narrative of Brown's strong-arm robbery of the c-store.

At least three of requests -- ABC's Josh Margolin ("other audio and video records associated with the death of Michael Brown"), the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Joel Currier ("All documentation leading up to and including the death of Michael Brown...include but may not be limited to video...") and Judicial Watch's Sean Dunagan ("any and all log entries and related records regarding, concerning or related to Michael Brown...The timeframe for this request is August 1, 2013 to August 9, 2014.") -- would require the release of the video.

Three, a lot, many, a flood[/] -- those are subjective adjectives.

What's not subjective is the $15,000 fine for sunshine violations - 5 grand a pop plus attorney's fees plus costs. The same kind of monies the MO-ACLU was asking the court to award against St. Louis County in the ACLU search for the name of the officer involved which prompted the release of all related public records -- not just those that advance a certain narrative.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Judge denies request for Michael Brown's juvenile records

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_43dfd98b-32ec-550d-b399-750133f69203.html

A circuit court judge in St. Louis County denied a request by the Post-Dispatch to release Michael Brown’s juvenile criminal records.

Family Court Judge Ellen Levy Siwak issued the denial Tuesday without stating a reason.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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

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?

That's not exactly how I would describe it/frame it - but essentially, yes. I don't think it was "fine", but I do think Wilson has legal justification for his actions. It's probably overly-broad with too much benefit of the doubt given.

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?

I don't know that it would be, and that would add doubt, certainly.

I am surprised none of the witnesses, as I recall, say they heard Wilson saying or yelling anything.
Except Johnson, who claims Wilson said: I’ll shoot. I'mma shoot you.

I think the majority of witnesses don't report on any dialogue.

It will be interesting to see what responses they have to specific questions like what was said/what did they hear.

 

[Lerxst]

We shall see.



An imminent threat.



Be an imminent threat.



No.



No.



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.



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.

Okay. But it's alright to start with the conclusion that Brown was surrendering and work backwards from there, right?

By changing his mind I am referring to Brown initially resisting and then changing his mind and deciding to surrender.

Brown doesn't need to be trying to kill Wilson to be a threat, and to me it's unrealistic to think the threat expires in such a short period of time. It's easy enough for us to sit here and criticize Wilson but for all we know (and at least we do know he claims this happened) Brown had just punched him multiple times and tried to take his weapon. Even if Brown runs away at that point, it's not reasonable for me to expect the officer to just assume he is no longer a threat. Evidence now shows that it's possible he turned back toward Wilson and did not stop moving toward him. If Wilson was just assaulted by Brown, I'm sorry but I can't fault him for firing at that point.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Three, a lot, many, a flood[/] -- those are subjective adjectives.

What's not subjective is the $15,000 fine for sunshine violations - 5 grand a pop plus attorney's fees plus costs. The same kind of monies the MO-ACLU was asking the court to award against St. Louis County in the ACLU search for the name of the officer involved which prompted the release of all related public records -- not just those that advance a certain narrative.

Did they release everything that was asked for when it was asked for, or only the video of Brown in the store?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We hear from more and more witnesses that he was coming towards the officer, as the officer was backing away. (agree?)

Definitely not.

There's a voice on a video that said Brown 'kept coming' or something to that effect and a single witness that said Brown was moving toward Wilson who was backing up.

Who are these other "more and more witnesses" you believe exist?

Final shot was at four feet. (agree?)

No. There has been nothing in the way of evidence that supports any distances. Are you confusing 4 final shots with 4 feet away?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So this strikes me as a bit odd. The petitions to get Michael Brown's juvenile records has been denied. I don't know a whole lot about records, but there was no reason given for the denial. Does anyone know what the reasoning behind that would be? If they confirmed there was no high-end felony convictions, why not release the records? I thought it was public information once a person was deceased. I can only assume they're using it for the ongoing investigation? Or presenting it to the grand jury?

Link

No reason stated but the obvious one is, there was nothing relevant in Brown's record.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There were media asking for the video by any objective measure. A lot is a subjective phrase, so that definition is in the eyes of the beholder. I submit a lot may differ a bit between a medium-sized police department and, say, the FBI. But that's just hair-splitting. One is "too many".

We are back to, either the video was relevant in which case, why was it not treated the same as the other information that was not released? Or it was not relevant in which case the single FOIA request that spelled out events that led up to the shooting was the only one that was remotely worded in a way one could interpret it as including the video, clearly, not a flood.

As for 'the fines', 'they had to', and all that hyperbole: same thing, then why was everything else not released yet?

 

[Cylinder]

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.

The author of that piece seems to do a bit of hand waving on the issue of use of force by law enforcement. I think it's more useful to examine the actual standard by which Officer's actions will be judged by the grand jury investigation and potential criminal trial. I've omitted the optional language for multiple counts and arrest pursuant to warrant to help with readability.

306.14 JUSTIFICATION: USE OF FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

PART A–GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

One of the issues in this case is whether the use of force by the defendant against [name of victim] was lawful. In this state, the use of force including the use of deadly force by a law enforcement officer in making an arrest or in preventing escape after arrest is lawful in certain situations.

A law enforcement officer can lawfully use force to make an arrest or to prevent escape if he is making a lawful arrest or an arrest which he reasonably believes to be lawful. An arrest is lawful if the officer reasonably believes that the person being arrested has committed or is committing a crime.

In making a lawful arrest or preventing escape after such an arrest, a law enforcement officer is entitled to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to effect the arrest or prevent the escape.

A law enforcement officer in making an arrest need not retreat or desist from his efforts because of resistance or threatened resistance by the person being arrested.

But in making an arrest or preventing escape, a law enforcement officer is not entitled to use deadly force, that is, force which he knows will create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury, unless he reasonably believes that the person being arrested is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon or that the person may endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.
And, even then, a law enforcement officer may use deadly force only if he reasonably believes the use of such force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or prevent the escape.

PART B–SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

On the issue of use of force by a law enforcement officer, you are instructed as follows:

First, if the defendant was a law enforcement officer making or attempting to make a lawful arrest or what he reasonably believed to be a lawful arrest of [name of victim] for the crime of [name of crime] and the defendant reasonably believed that use of force was necessary to effect the arrest of to prevent the escape of [name of victim] and

Second, the defendant reasonably believed that [name of victim] (was attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon) (or) (would endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay), and the defendant reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to effect the arrest of [name of victim], then the defendant’s use of force was lawful.

The state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entitled to use force as a law enforcement officer. Unless you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entitled to use force as a law enforcement officer against [name of victim], you must find the defendant not guilty.

As used in this instruction, the term “serious physical injury” means physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes serious disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part of the body.​

It seems from kind of the skeleton narrative asserted by the FPD and the Josie caller, Wilson doesn't claim Brown "was attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon," so Wilson 's claim to use of force to effect arrest is limited to a reasonable belief that Brown "may endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay."

The narrative as it's currently asserted at least seems to be more in line with the traditional justification of self defense with kind of a concurrent argument of use of force to effect arrest to prevent Brown from endangering Wilson's life or inflicting serious injury. Other than Wilson's total lack of duty of retreat and avoidance, that's not particularly different from the traditional civilian justification of self defense.

As far as I can tell from the issues that have shown themselves in this case, Wilson's claim hinges on the justification for the first shot (i.e. was the initial use of force reasonable) and the last (i.e. if the first use of force was reasonable, did some circumstance intervene to take away that reasonableness prior to the fatal shot.)

 

[Cylinder]

Also, using the term atypical to describe showing all the evidence to a grand jury presupposes the presentment of a bill of indictment. It's not atypical to use a grand jury to investigate the possibility of a crime or official wrongdoing. If we were considering all felony charges, the use of a grand jury itself is atypical -- the vast majority being executed via information and probable cause hearing before a circuit judge. The benefit of a grand jury is that they have the power to subpoena witnesses to testify under oath in circumstances where no criminal charges have been approved by the court. A prosecutor alone doesn't have that power.