It has been obvious for quite some time that the Grand Jury was not going to indict Darren Wilson. The question was – would there merely be protests or would there be riots? St. Louis County police said this morning that the scene was far worse than it was in August, with 61 arrests and 10 businesses destroyed by fire.
The police chief was quick to blame it on criminals, who, he said, used protests to smash windows, but what was interesting to me was we got to see the situation escalate on live TV, and I believe the results were avoidable.
The decision on whether to charge or indict Officer Darren Wilson is curious. Prosecutor Bob McCulloch was quick to defend the use of the Grand Jury, but that decision is really about political cover. Having watched dozens of preliminary hearings over the last five years, I can tell you that the probable cause standard for indictment or for holding someone to answer to charges is extremely low.
If there is conflicting testimony from witnesses or even contradictory evidence, the judge or the Grand Jury is instructed to view the prosecutor’s case in the best possible light – if all of the evidence is assumed true, is there sufficient evidence that a jury could convict?
We know from the evidence released that there is enough evidence to meet that standard. As attorney Rick Horowitz writes on his blog, “From the moment the news was out that Darren Wilson had killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, there was probable cause to hold Wilson to answer at trial.” (Read down a ways on his entry to get a pretty good sense of the low standard that is “probable cause.”)
Now if the prosecutor does not believe they can get a conviction, there is no reason that they need to bring forth the case. But that should be the prosecutor’s call, rather than pushing the Grand Jury one way or another.
I bring this point up, not because I necessarily believe the Grand Jury or prosecutor was wrong, but because the Grand Jury was actually a political ploy to legitimize what the prosecutor feared was a controversial decision that would bring forth more tensions.
Mr. McCulloch then compounded the problem by excoriating the news media and social media in what some called “an extended whine,” rather than focusing on the decision and sensibilities of the population.
As CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said, “The first part was an extended whine and complaint about the news media and social media, which I thought was entirely inappropriate and embarrassing and just really undignified, given the circumstances.”
That really set the tone for the night. I’m not sure that this was fatal to preventing violence, but it was unnecessary and it looked insensitive at best, and inflammatory at worst.
President Obama has limited influence at this point, but I thought his tone was the right one, “First and foremost, we are a nation built on the rule of law. And so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury’s to make. There are Americans who agree with it, and there are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. It’s an understandable reaction. But I join Michael’s parents in asking anyone who protests this decision to do so peacefully.”
Michael Brown’s father offered perhaps the strongest words of the evening issuing the statement, “Hurting others or destroying property is not the answer. No matter what the grand jury decides, I do not want my son’s death to be in vain. I want it to lead to incredible change, positive change, change that makes the St. Louis region better for everyone.”
Unfortunately, a series of tactical errors by officials really caused a lot of problems.
First, whoever made the decision to announce the decision at night was really foolish – and a lot of people questioned this even before the decision was announced. Had they issued the decision at 9 am, they would have had eight hours before dark to prepare for potential violence. Cooler heads may have prevailed.
Second, the police unnecessarily escalated the situation by attempting to clear the middle of the street. They should have conceded the middle of the street to protesters and chalked it up to one night of protesting. Instead, clearing the street and firing tear gas really lit a match to what was a very tense situation to begin with.
For all of the mistakes that the police made at UC Davis three years ago, in November of 2011, the one thing they did correctly was to allow the large protest following the pepper spray incident to come off with absolutely no discernible police presence. While that tactic may not have worked in Ferguson, the police’s stance created a flashpoint for the violence to erupt.
On live TV following the decision, you watched the situation go from tense to out of control and it occurred over a period of time. Tear gassing the crowd was a very bad decision. You could see the reaction even from people who were not participating in the violence – it created anger. And, for the most part, there was no need for it that early.
The St. Louis paper quoted Missouri Highway Patrol Captain Ron Johnson, who said, “We talked about peaceful protest, and that did not happen tonight. We definitely have done something here that’s going to impact our community for a long time…that’s not how we create change.”
St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said he “didn’t think the late-in-the-day timing of the announcement was a factor in the violence. He said he didn’t get any advance notice of what the jury’s decision would be and that he didn’t expect it because it would be inappropriate under the grand jury system.”
The Post-Dispatch reports, “Police had said that they deployed tear gas after they used smoke to attempt to disperse the crowd. Earlier they had said they did not use gas…
“A police line in riot gear stood in the road. They warned the protesters to clear the street, some didn’t, then police deployed the smoke. St. Louis County Police tweeted that the substance was smoke and not tear gas, as some in the streets reported. At 10:35 p.m., police confirmed what they used was tear gas.”
I still think this was the biggest mistake – the attempt to disperse the crowd seemed to be the catalyst for the situation decaying.
“I don’t think we were under-prepared,” the police chief said.
I don’t believe they were unprepared so much as tactically deficient. They did not take the approach to attempt to deescalate tensions and, as a result, a bad situation got far worse. Given all of the time they had to prepare for this, the mismanagement of this situation was disappointing.
But, frankly, the entire situation was a set up that was going to lead to riots – and frankly they should be thankful we are only talking about 10 buildings and 61 arrests.
This situation once again illustrates the difficulty of holding police officers accountable for shootings that occur under the color of authority. There will be those that question whether the riots will do any good – if history is a guide, they won’t. There will be those who blame the violence on the criminal element taking advantage of the situation.
The Post-Dispatch noted: “Immediately after the announcement, the scene remained relatively peaceful as people continued to strain to listen to McCulloch’s speech.”
“What’s done is done, now do what you gotta do,” an angry woman yelled into a bullhorn.
From the Tampa Bay Times: “‘It’s a brotherhood. In the cop community, they stand together,’ said Patria Shepard, 35, a customer service representative who lives in Florissant [Missouri], as she stood outside the police station. ‘When you are sworn in with that badge, no matter how much wrong you do, it’s right.’”
Most will ignore these kinds of comments, but I think they sum up the prevailing belief in the black community – they do not trust the system to oversee the actions of the police and hold them accountable. While there is no agreement about whether Officer Wilson was justified in his shooting, the absolute lack of faith in the system renders that a moot point.
But to me, we come back to the words of Barack Obama, “We are a nation built on the rule of law.” However, for too many people in this nation we are a nation built on the rule of two different laws – one that governs privilege and one that governs people of color and last night we saw what happens when those two sets of law meet.
Without trust, there can be no acceptance of the rule of law.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
No, McColloch pointed out how much of the media stoked the fire through false reports and taking the word of many supposed eye witnesses who were later proven to be lying. As far as setting the tone for the night what are you talking about? McColloch pointing out how wrong the media has been had nothing to do with what was coming later, they were going to act stupid once the judgement came down in the officer’s favor regardless.
My point was that it set the tone for the night and it was another unnecessary move that served to inflame the situation. No need to point it out. McCulloch should have said that regardless of the cause and blame, this was a terrible tragedy, the grand jury concluded that this was not a criminal act by the police officer and my office agrees with that assessment. Then go into details.
I really don’t understand why the decision wasn’t announced early in the morning. Preferably on Thanksgiving Day.
“I still think this was the biggest mistake – the attempt to disperse the crowd seemed to be the catalyst for the situation decaying.”
Agree. IMHO, law enforcement should have allowed a peaceful, all night protest.
“Without trust, there can be no acceptance of the rule of law.”
Agree. I’m dismayed that both of my kids have told me they do not trust law enforcement and they will never voluntarily cooperate with them, ever. I hope someday they change their minds, and trust is restored.
sisterhood wrote:
> I really don’t understand why the decision wasn’t announced early in the morning.
It is real cold in Ferguson right now (with a chance of light snow) and the cops know that a lot more people will riot when it is above freezing than when it is below freezing.
I think we really need to look at how the media covers stuff like this since the chance for “fame on TV” is bringing a lot of bloggers and trouble makers tot he area.
P.S. Nothing says “I’m getting back at the white man” than burning an/or looting a black owned business in your own black neighborhood…
More people will riot at night than during the day is the point you’re avoiding.
“I’m dismayed that both of my kids have told me they do not trust law enforcement”
I think that part of the problem with regard to “lack of trust” is the awareness that police are, under circumstances that they get to define as “necessary” allowed and even encouraged to lie to those who are detained. I myself find it very hard to trust someone who I know believes that they are justified in lying to me. And this is only on the individual level. Now try imagining that you have lived your entire life in a community in which the police are viewed not as protectors but rather as the opposition ? Is it any wonder that when we allow the police to lie, but then decry the same practice from the citizenry, there would be a lack of trust ?
Tia wrote:
> I myself find it very hard to trust someone who I know
> believes that they are justified in lying to me.
Are you talking about the huge number of MDs that get kick backs for sending patients to tests they don’t need?
http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/Press/files/Babaria,%20Ashokkumar%20Plea%20News%20Release.html
We are back to punishing the whole soccer team because one guy hit the ref (or shot a kid in the back) Sure some cops lie a lot (just like “some” doctors, lawyers, CPAs and ministers…
“Are you talking about the huge number of MDs that get kick backs for sending patients to tests they don’t need?”
No. I was talking about the subject of this article and individual and community trust of law enforcement. I fail to see how an MD “lying” to a patient in anyway exonerates a policeman from the same action.
But you are missing two points.
1. We do not arm doctors with lethal weapons which they get to use essentially at their own discretion and turn them loose to “protect” the community. No one is forced to go to the lab for a test that the doctor recommends, and anyone can be non compliant without it costing their life. No doctor injects a lethal substance into the patient’s body if he doesn’t do as told.
2. Lying is not institutionalized amongst doctors. It is not seen as a legitimate part of our arsenal of techniques to gain compliance as it is with the police.
Tia wrote:
> 1. We do not arm doctors with lethal weapons
If they don’t have anything “leathal” how to they kill so many people?
Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Killing 225,000 People Every Year
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/07/30/doctors-death-part-one.aspx
> Lying is not institutionalized amongst doctors.
> It is not seen as a legitimate part of our arsenal of
> techniques to gain compliance as it is with the police.
You need to get out more since while I’m not a defender of cops or doctors they BOTH tell a lot of lies (while MOST cops and MDs are good people that don’t lie a lot).
It is funny that so many on the left get mad when racists in the south say ALL blacks lie, but 30 seconds later will say ALL cops (or Republicans) lie…
Tia, I have a question. You wrote: “Now try imagining that you have lived your entire life in a community in which the police are viewed not as protectors but rather as the opposition ?”
And why is that? The police aren’t viewed that way in many other communities.
There are many factors at play, including the breakdown of the black family, the breakdown of the educational system, failed local and state governments, runaway crime, numerous gangs, drugs, crack, lack of discipline, out of wedlock births, and all of these factors have led to businesses fleeing, which just makes a bad situation worse.
Then we get riots every decade or every other year when the local media and community decide to make an issue out of the latest crime.
These same “communities” don’t turn in rapists and murderers living in their midst. By junior high children learn “Snitches get stitches, B—-es”. When the police go to investigate, they get the cold shoulder.
It’s all very sad, it’s a cycle, and then fools like Al Sharpton feast on the aftermath.
Agree with everything Tia said. Have personally witnessed a Dixon cop lie to me and threaten to send CPS to my home if I did not cooperate with them. ( I did not even share that info with my kids, because I wanted them to have some kind of faith in our criminal justice system.)
Stop the lying.
I think that is the operative phrase, sisterhood, and no one should if they are in a criminal situation. How many people are overeager to tell a cop :”it was only 57 in a 55 zone” and he gives a ticket. Better to say nothing.
But hopefully your kids are just distrustful of them, and not actively trying to attack or incite them…
I understand your concerns, but did you ever consider you might get a different result if you show the officer respect and cooperation? I’ve been in plenty of urban situations where citizens don’t show respect for authority, so sure, the cops look at them with a bit of suspicion.
I heard they waited until later at night because of keeping kids safe going to and from school.
Questionable decision. People are much less likely to start a riot during daylight hours.
And if they did during daylight hours and kids got hurt you would be excoriating them for that too. It was a no win.
Ya think?
Personally I think that’s a way to discount the riot as an embodiment of social conditions
Of course it is. Blame the few looters, ignore the peaceful protesters, and deflect the reasons people are protesting in the first place.
The more important point isn’t about peaceful protesters, it about the fact that a riot is actually a very low frequency event. It happens only under very extreme conditions in this country. So if this were merely a matter of criminals taking advantage of the situation, you would see far more riots than we do.
In the sixties, on college campuses, the blame was in oitside agitators. Now it’s the criminal element.
” In the sixties, on college campuses, the blame was in oitside agitators”
And let’s not forget the part of the justification for the totally excessive response of the UCD police in the pepper spraying incident was the supposed, but never proven, outside “elements” who might do something “unthinkable ” to some protesting coed. A clear instance in my mind of making up a boogie man where none existed, which directly led to the escalation of events culminating in the pepper spraying.
A more reasonable approach from my point of view would have been to post police in strategic spots around the tents to protect the women protestors if they really believed that that was the danger.
In the case of Fergerson, a more reasonable approach in my mind would be to send in police and military, not in riot gear, but to stand together with the peaceful protestors and listen to their stories. Sending in police in riot gear does nothing but taunt an already frustrated and angry crowd.
Exposed to the same stimuli for the same duration, what makes one group of people think they could/would behave differently than the other? The momentum of cultural, environmental and historic influence is nearly irresistible. The sad fact is that most of us don’t give a damn about what happen to “them” until it impacts and threatens “us.”
;>)/
This sadness of this situation is that blacks as a group protest this one shooting death while heaven and hell is filled with thousands of their own from their own guns. The sadness of this situation is that a young man behaving like Michael Brown becomes a standard by which other young black men relate to and rally around. The sadness of this situation is that the liberal community and the media continue to throw gas on the fires of black anger with their soft bigotry of low expectations for black behavior and their constant criticism of law enforcement.
the real sadness is that you’ve created a situation where the people cannot confront the thousands of death from their own guns because they don’t trust the police enough to discriminate between the criminal and the average citizen. but you don’t want to talk about that, you want to regurgitate other people’s misinformed lines and spout your platitudes about liberals and the media. it gets old. [edit]
And the childish outbursts continue. You’re acting like a spoiled child that didn’t get their way, a Grand Jury indictment.
Frankly, consider this a compliment. When they resort to name calling, they have run out of argument because you’ve had a valid point. Well done.
i haven’t weighed in the issue of the indictment.
Sorry DP. The ignorance is 100% in your court. You are too myopic in your worldview to see the problems and the solutions. You and your ilk are the last roadblocks to civil rights 2.0 which is the black race finally reaching parity with all other races that have achieved the same.
If you don’t want to be targeted by the cops, then stop behaving like a thug. Stop robbing, stop stealing, stop pimiping, stop dealing drugs, stop killing, stop ignoring the cops when they tell you to stop walking down the middle of the street. Just comply and show respect like all good people do.
If people do those things and then are shot or mistreated by the cops I will join you in demanding the cops are justly punished. But what we have here is a demand for a lynching of a white cop after due process. [Those] joining in that demand are frankly quite disgusting and clearly a source of the ongoing problems where many young blacks don’t respect the police, and as a result, get themselves in deep trouble with the police.
You honestly believe Mr. Brown deserved to die for the crimes of shoplifting and jay walking? There is no justification for the amount of shots fired. If Wilson felt so threatened and afraid, he could have gone back to his car, or aimed at Mr. Brown’s legs. The very last shot was to his head. No justification for that. No justice.
Nobody said that, but when Mr. Brown attacked the cop all bets were off, the cop was ruled to have justifiably defended himself. Deal with it.
sisterhood wrote:
> You honestly believe Mr. Brown deserved to die
> for the crimes of shoplifting and jay walking?
The grand jury did not give the cops the OK to shoot shoplifters and jay walkers, it said that if a 300 pound guy comes after a cop second time after first trying to get his gun inside his car that a cop has a reason to believe that the guy is trying to get the gun so he can kill him and a cop has the OK to use deadly force to save his own life.
Uh, the conservative media have also played this up big time. Different “spin”, perhaps.
“constant criticism of law enforcement.”
I believe in each individual taking responsibility for their own actions. This means to me that whether you are a member of an impoverished neighborhood, or whether you are a police officer sworn to protect that neighborhood, you remain the sole individual responsible for your own actions. One very real difference is that many people who live in very bad neighborhoods are doing so out of necessity, not out of choice. This is not true of police officers who are all in the profession voluntarily. Police are given great power over others and therefore in my mind have a much higher standard to live up to since they literally hold the power of life and death ( by our concession of this right) over those they are supposed to be protecting. And yet Frankly has on occasion defended even frankly boorish behavior on the part of the police. I don’t feel that police should be considered “just one of the boys”. I believe that they can and should be held to a higher standard. I do not believe that the title police officer is a license to use maximal force when other modalities might be equally safe and appropriate.
Once again the left hitched it’s wagon to the wrong person. Michael Brown was a thug who had just robbed a store and shoved a store clerk and has been proven to have attacked a cop. I doubt most of the nation has any sympathy for this.
It actually doesn’t matter who Michael Brown is. This isn’t about Michael Brown anymore. If you read the comments within the black community, they embody the real problem – lack of faith and the trust in the system. Until that can be resolved, it doesn’t matter if the police are completely justified or completely unjustified, the reaction will be the same because no one living in those communities believes a word of what the police, the DA, or elected officials say.
The system did work. A Grand Jury found that Officer Wilson’s actions were indeed justified. Where is all the sympathy for Wilson and what he’s been through from the President and the left?
the grand jury’s job was determine whether there was probable cause to charge officer wilson with a crime. they determined there was not. another body would have to review the case to determine if officer wilson’s actions followed proper procedure, there’s a gap between the two and there also a gap between criminal liability and civil liability. you need to be careful when you draw too broad an inference here.
Translation, the left isn’t happy with the Grand Jury ruling and by God we’re going to go after it in any way possible until we get what we want.
The left joins in the demand of a lynching of the white cop. The left routinely demonstrates that the law is only a tool they respect as a means to their ends. And that message is clearly telegraphed all the way from our country’s chief executive… who I am sure continues to view his struggles as being racial motivated instead of accepting that his performance has been substandard. There is not doubt in my mind that the President’s mind was also corrupted by the soft bigotry of low expectations. Just the fact that he was elected without executive experience was a strong clue that we had lowered the expectations bar.
Please explain to me how lowered expectations lifts up a person or a people.
David wrote:
> If you read the comments within the black community,
> they embody the real problem – lack of faith and the trust in the system.
It is interesting how government is sucking money out of the poor in Ferguson:
“The people in Ferguson need to accept responsibility for their consent to a police department and city government that manages to issue 3 arrest warrants per household per year, and imposes fines that amount to $130 per man, woman, child and infant.”
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3362147
BP, good points. Yes, Michael Brown was no saint, his step father and mother have a criminal background, and we have him on tape committing some type of crime … assault and battery? Where is the empathy for the shop owner, who I think was victimized again by the same community.
I think David misses the point, or doesn’t want to face the reality, that many segments of the black community are doing well. It is a complex mess, and many of these issues reside in the black community itself.
The idea of all-pervasive racism is so easily dis-proven. Ethiopian-Americans are exemplary citizens, Nigerian-Americans are likewise, as are tens of millions of upper, middle, and even lower-class African Americans.
What we are dealing with here is a sub-culture in inner city America, often in the projects or low-income housing, few fathers, few role models, rap music predominates, and local political hacks and the Jesse Jackson’s and Al Sharpton’s of the world take advantage of their plight.
But take the flip side.
I know a young man who grew up in Oakland, no father, and his mother was on welfare. She went on to get a college degree, and masters, and now makes over $100,000 per year. Her son, who I met when he entered college, now has his PhD. He is married, and has 2 sons. If we were to believe the Left, this would be impossible. But it happens all the time. He and his mother both made good decisions, worked hard, and improved their lot.
[moderator] I have pulled some comments and replies. To all blog participants: please do not call each other names. And please avoid pejorative comments about any general class of people. I urge you all to review the Vanguard Comments Policy:
https://davisvanguard.org/about-us/comment-policy/
I could not agree less with the author’s depiction of Mr McCullouch’s statement. I found it to be descriptive, informative, and eloquent. He laid out the who, what, when, where, and why. And when taking questions from the media, questions already answered in his statement or purposefully inflammatory questions, he answered them appropriately.
I also feel that his use of the Grand Jury in this situation was justified. You may disagree with their use because you do not agree with their decision. But all of the evidence and witness testimony was given to them over 25 sessions and they came to an appropriate conclusion, despite the overwhelming pressure for them to hand down an indictment. By all accounts a majority of the witnesses to the shooting, most of whom were black, corroborated Officer Wilson’s version of events. All of the forensic and ballistic evidence corroborated Officer Wilson’s version of events. Should we ignore all those facts because some are uncomfortable with the fact that a young man was shot to death by a police officer? Or do we look at the truth.
Mr McCulloch, as a prosecutor, has a moral and legal responsibility to charge or not charge a person based on facts and evidence. If he didn’t feel there was evidence to charge Officer Wilson, morally he cannot bring a case against him. So instead he left it up to a professional grand jury to decide, the right choice. I have a feeling those that disagree with the use of the Grand Jury would change their tune had they indicted Officer Wilson
The truth is a young man set in motion a chain of events that brought about this horrible tragedy. Michael Brown willingly went to that liquor store and committed a strong arm robbery (felony). Brown, upon being caught by Officer Wilson, willingly resisted arrest with violence by punching Officer Wilson (felony). Brown then willingly attempted to take Officer Wilson’s gun from him (felony). What reason do you think he was trying to take the officers gun? I can absolutely assume that Officer Wilson believed had he lost his weapon he would have been shot dead with his own gun. Then Brown walked away before turning back and charging the officer, corroborated by witnesses. By all accounts, forensic and eye witness, Officer Wilson was defending his own life from Brown’s actions. Please don’t let emotion cloud the facts.
Those of you have have read my comments in the past may have seen a theme, personal responsibility and accountability. Why are very few pointing out that the accountability for this case falls on Brown?
Frankly made a comment earlier to which he was called stupid, but it was a valid observation. A black man in this country is 100 times more likely to be shot to death by another black man than by a police officer. But where is the outrage from the community and black leaders in those cases?
From NBC News:
Darren Wilson Described Michael Brown as ‘Crazy,’ Intent on Killing Him
BY M. ALEX JOHNSON
Ferguson, Missouri, police Officer Darren Wilson alleged that Michael Brown taunted him, telling him he was too cowardly to shoot him, before Wilson fired 12 rounds and killed the unarmed teenager, according to a transcript of Wilson’s interview with detectives the day after the Aug. 9 shooting.
According to grand jury records released Monday night, Wilson was asked several times by two Ferguson police detectives on Sunday, Aug. 10, what he was thinking during the confrontation. Wilson replied:
“He’s gonna kill me.”
“How do I survive?”
“How do I live through this, basically?”
Later in the interview, Wilson said Brown was physically uncontrollable and “for lack of a better word, crazy. I’ve never seen that. I mean, it was very aggravated, aggressive, hostile. Just, you couldn’t, you could, you could tell he was lookin’ through ya.”
Fires burn in Ferguson after officer not indicted
TODAY
Wilson’s account to police closely matches what court records show he told the grand jury in four hours of testimony in September. Brown was so large and menacing, he testified, that “I felt like a five-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan,” adding, “That’s just how big he felt and how small I felt just from grasping his arm.”
The question of whether Wilson believed he was at personal risk is central to any determination of whether the shooting was justified under state law. In announcing that a grand jury had declined to indict Wilson on any charges, St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch told reporters Monday night that while other witnesses disagreed, several testified that Brown did turn and advance on the officer.
“As tragic as this is, it was a not a crime,” McCulloch said.
Wilson told the detectives that the fatal confrontation began when he saw two black men walking on the center yellow line of the roadway as he was responding to a radio call reporting a theft of mini-cigars called cigarillos at the Ferguson Market.
“I told ’em, ‘Hey guys, why don’t you walk on the sidewalk,'” Wilson told the detectives. “The first one said, ‘We’re almost to our destination.'”
“‘Okay, but what’s wrong with the sidewalk?'” Wilson asked the subjects, at which point, one of them said, “F— what you have to say,” according to Wilson. Wilson said he called for backup and then backed his marked police car up about 10 feet toward the two men, and then things got out of hand.
Wilson gave investigators a detailed, almost second-by-second account of his take on the incident in an interview that lasted more than a half-hour.
According to Wilson:
When Wilson tried to get out of his car, Brown cursed and shut the door. The window was open, however, and Brown — “swinging and punching at me from outside the vehicle” — made at least three attempts to get into the car at through the open window. Brown landed at least two “solid blows” with a closed fist on Wilson’s face, the officer said.
ST. LOUIS COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE VIA REUTERS
A St. Louis County prosecutor’s office photo shows Ferguson, Missouri, police Officer Darren Wilson photo taken shortly after the Aug. 9 shooting of Michael Brown, presented to the grand jury and made available Monday.
When Brown turned to hand his companion, “several packs of cigarillos” that had been reported stolen, Wilson used the opportunity to grab Brown’s arm, but Brown was too big and powerful to control.
“I was already trapped and didn’t know what he was gonna do to me but I knew it wasn’t gonna be good,” Wilson said. Because Brown had him pinned, Wilson couldn’t reach his Mace canister, he said. And he wasn’t carrying a Taser, so he pulled his SIG Sauer .40-caliber P229 handgun.
The teen allegedly taunted the cop, telling him, “You’re too much of a p—y to shoot me,” Wilson told investigators. Then, according to the transcript, Brown grabbed his gun, and “my firearm was in his control around my hand.”
Wilson managed to redirect the weapon toward Brown so that it was “somewhat lined up with his silhouette and pulled the trigger” twice, but “nothing happened” — apparently because Brown had jammed his fingers between the hammer and the slide, preventing the gun from firing, Wilson said.
The third time Wilson fired, glass flew everywhere, and there was “blood all over my right hand,” the officer said. Brown, looking shocked, charged at the vehicle, managed to wedge the top half of his body inside the car “and attempted to hit me multiple times,” Wilson said — “fist, grab, I mean just crazy.”
Wilson tried twice to fire again, he said, but his weapon apparently jammed both times. By that point, Brown had started running away, he said.
Wilson said he got out of the car, called again for backup and began pursuit. Brown “stopped, he turned, looked at me, made like a grunting noise and had the most intense aggressive face I’ve ever seen on a person,” Wilson said.
Brown started running toward him, Wilson said, darting his right hand under his shirt and into his waistband and keeping it there. “I fired multiple shots,” Wilson said, but “he was still in the same state: still charging, hands still in his waistband, hadn’t slowed down.”
Wilson fired two more series of multiple shots — one or more of which “hit him in the head and he went down right there,” Wilson said.
“I got on the radio and said, ‘Send me every car we got and a supervisor,'” Wilson said.
— Tom Winter, Monica Alba, Aliza Nadi, Mark Schone and Lindsay Perez contributed to this report.
Thanks Anon for the well detailed facts of the case. I doubt it will matter much to some on here as they had their minds made up already before the Grand Jury decision.
Just to be clear, I very pointedly did not weigh in on the Grand Jury decision itself. Though I will say I have a very different reaction to what anon posted than you did.
What is your reaction? I’m very curious.
I haven’t read enough to make the call for sure, but my reaction is that they had enough to meet probable cause but probably not enough to convict. I also think his office erred by going the Grand Jury route rather than making that determination themselves.
Much of what Anon posted has been backed up by the eye witnesses of which many were reported to be black.
And if they had made that determination themselves I’m sure you would’ve been even harder on McColloch than you are now. I remember the community having misgivings about McColloch making a decision even before the decision to use a Grand Jury. Another now win.
A Grand Jury isn’t a neutral body that operates independently of the prosecutor. There is no other attorney, presentation of balanced evidence, cross examination, so what the jury sees in a Grand Jury is what the prosecutor wants them to see. It’s why most jurisdictions have moved away from indictments and towards preliminary hearings for 99% of their cases.
Common sense rules for me, along with the weapon going off in the car.
OK, let’s assume the worst of the worst, this cop is flaming racist. If so, wouldn’t it be better to shoot a young man at night, in a dark alley, then in broad daylight surrounded by dozens of witnesses? And if he were a racist, we’d have a string of bad reports over the years, which we don’t have.
But the blood and weapon’s discharge inside the car is enough for me. Mr. Brown wasn’t going for the gun to play Monopoly, or to get a citizens award. This is highly unusual, and tells us some ominous truths which only zealots might ignore.
I think that is why these cases that some people look to as a good moment to advance their cause, the rest of the people look as “defending the devil” = Not you, TBD 🙂
If they could march and protest all the time until they shut down things without the criminals being a part of the protest or the cause, laws might get changed. What are you advocating for? You advocate for peace then loot and pillage like Vikings?
Also St Louis has been a hotbed of racist actions back to the 1700s. Is this part of it? Too many agendas, all clashing. David seems to approach from the legal arena, and some are arguing the Social angle.. Clashing again, but great to read.. Thank you all.
“David Greenwald
November 25, 2014 at 8:39 am
It actually doesn’t matter who Michael Brown is. This isn’t about Michael Brown anymore.”
It should be about Michael Brown. The fact that it isn’t has a lot to do with the reprehensible way media and attention seekers like Al Sharpton have thrown gasoline on a smoldering fire.
I wonder if the race baiting Al Sharpton is visiting the White House today as he often does.
Too many in my opinion are of the belief that but-for the outside agitators, this situation would not have exploded. The reality is I don’t see Al Sharpton or others as being very influential in these matters. The media give them attention, but for the most the people in these communities are not following the media.
Like I said, I see this as a history of police-minority conflict and a lack of trust in the black community in the word of police and public officials. The result is that it is possible that the officer could have acted totally right and still engendered this type of response. Until we fix that trust issue, we will not progress.
Interesting point David. But trust, by its very nature, has to be on both sides. Law Enforcement should be able to trust that in the course of their legal enforcement they will not be assaulted. Assaulted to the point they are fighting for their life as it was in this case.
I read Officer Wilson’s account of the events of that day. It sounded like he wasn’t even going to stop Brown, who was walking in traffic causing a danger to himself and motorists. Should police trust that when they suggest he move to the sidewalk he isn’t told to f*** off?
Basic fact is trust had nothing to do with this case and many others like it. It boils down a sense of entitlement or lack of following the rules that is generally escalated to the point of force being used. Then they blame the police when the suspect is the one that lets the situation get to a boiling point.
I don’t know the Missouri law, but in CA we’re allowed to cuss at a cop and flip him/her off. Not nice, but not a reason to die.
Once again, Brown didn’t die because he cussed at the cop. He died because he assaulted the cop and the cop defended himself. What is so hard to understand about that?
Maybe. I see a situation that escalated and the officer did a poor job of defusing it before taking lethal force – and I’m not clear that he was ever justified to take that lethal force.
The nature of the police’s job is to not trust. There are of course ways to break down those barriers, but I’m not familiar enough with Ferguson to know what kind of community outreach the police utilize.
What I did see from Officer Wilson questions his response to his encounter with Brown to make me wonder if more adept handling by Wilson would have avoided the escalation of that situation.
I’m sorry, but please explain how you, David, would defuse a situation in which a persons response to being stopped for a clear violation is punching the officer repeatedly and trying to take his weapon from him. How, with all the evidence from witnesses and forensics, can you describe the escalation by the Officer Wilson? Take the blinders off and see this for what it is. Most of what the Grand Jury deliberated is out there, please take the time to read it. This kid is solely responsible for all that occurred that day.
And honestly journalists such as yourself feeding the flames is not helping. Including the title of this article. I understand this is “commentary”, but is irresponsible.
Sorry but I’m sure that the facts as you describe them are accurate, moreover my question would be – how exactly did we get to the point where the kid was punching the officer repeatedly – if that’s what actually happened. The eyewitness accounts vary on crucial details. Again, given the pomposity of Wilson’s testimony, I question how he handled the situation as well as his ability to objectively recall it. He testified that Michael Brown was a sooulless behemoth and that he was “almost bulking up to run through the shots, like it was making him mad that I’m shooting at him.” That’s objective? That’s the guy you want on the streets confronting this kind of situation? Really?
Moreover, while we may know what the Grand Jury was presented with, we don’t know how it was presented. There was strong criticism of McCulloch, who was viewed as being in the pockets of the police and he refused to step aside to have a special prosecutor who might be more neutral.
“And honestly journalists such as yourself feeding the flames is not helping. Including the title of this article. I understand this is “commentary”, but is irresponsible.”
You’re entitled to your opinion, but the title was posed intentionally out of the notion that unless trust is rebuilt in these communities this will be no peace anytime these incidents occur. Do we bury our heads in the same on that?
“This kid is solely responsible for all that occurred that day.”
The last shot was to the kid’s head.
Does anyone believe a dead cop would have lied in the street for four and a half hours? Unbelievably disrespectful.
If obviously dead, with no hope of medical assistance of value? Yes. Called ‘preserving the crime scene’. However, you may be correct, that if an officer went down, even if obviously beyond hope, I could see where officers would still feel a hope for a miracle for one of “their own”, and would even rush an obviously deceased “brother” to the hospital, ‘praying’ for that miracle.
They also could not determine the order of the shots. Unless you read something later that explains it, the last shot could have been any of them?
No one in this excellent conversation has mentioned the possible impairment of Brown OR his compatriot. If M Brown had drugs in his system, (fact) his behavior could be understood better by the people who try to excuse it. No one heard or mentioned what his buddy said or incited him to do at the convenience store or when on the street.
As Mayor KJ said “he had so much promise”.
My comments are not posting correctly, so sorry if this rings twice:
No one has mentioned the impairment of the two people nor what the friend might have said or incited M Brown to do at the store or in the street.
as Mayor KJ said “he had so much promise”. If he graduated high school, then he indeed had potential..
Darren Wilson, the officer, got due process. Michael Brown did not. If you think all of the police killings of unarmed black “suspects” across the country (like the killing of the 12-year old kid playing with an airgun in a public park in Cleveland a couple days ago) is not related to the legacy of slavery and the needs of the institution of slavery to subjugate Africans in the U.S. over the last four hundred years then you are not qualified to comment. I am only interested in how a discussion of reparations for slavery (not just a dollar valuation) can begin to change the underlying assumptions on race and power.
Michael Brown gave up his right to due process when he attacked Officer Wilson repeatedly and tried to take his weapon away. Brown caused this, simple. Not slavery, not years of oppression, not years of racism. No amount of excuse making will change the fact that Brown’s actions caused the officer to defend his own life and survive the situation. Shame on you for implying that Brown’s horrible conduct is legitimized by prior wrongs.
Sorry, theotherside, but I have to say that I have been under the impression that “[no] person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”
I tend to interpret that as it being rather impossible to give up one’s right to due process, as vicious murderers, terrorists, whatever are, in this country, entitled to due process. I think.
I was not saying Brown had no right to due process, he did. Had he given up to Officer Wilson’s legal stop and not threatened Officer Wilson’s life with his actions, he would have all the due process he wanted. But he didn’t.
theotherside, I am replying to you up in this spot – there just happens to be no reply button visible to me at the end of your comment. So, I guess I was thrown by your sentence which began, “Michael Brown gave up his right to due process when he attacked…” It sounded like you were saying that Michael Brown gave up his right to due process when he attacked….
First of all, part of his due process should be that he allegedly attacked ….
And I think you are saying that you meant only that his actions were, if you will, the proximate cause of his own death, therefore he is responsible for his loss of due process – due process that you are sure he would have received had he lived/not allegedly attacked Wilson.
You are drawing a fine line by saying that his alleged actions did not invalidate his right to due process, only that they prevented actual due process. But I believe that a lot of people are finding Wilson’s response to the alleged actions to have been excessive use of force, preventing due process before an arrest.
I dispute the term of alleged. The facts, eye witness accounts, and physical evidence show that Brown resisted with force. And that Officer Wilson’s use of force was justified in defense of his own life. I choose to not turn a blind eye to facts and lead with emotion.
But I do not see that a failure to indict one person, and the process that determined that, is tantamount to a conviction of the other – that is, whatever the result of the indictment proceeding against Wilson, it does not determine that there would be a conviction of Brown. So, until Brown is convicted or pleads out, to me that is still alleged. Not feeling emotional.
The “legacy of slavery” is that we have people spouting opinions like this preventing us from moving to true racial equality.
Frankly and theotherside, are you sure you guys meet Dave Hart’s parameters to qualify to comment on this subject?
I would question it myself if I thought Dave Hart’s comment wasn’t just DNC talking points without much thought behind it.
That’s pretty limited view of an institution that shaped our entire nation and its formation.
I don’t get your point here, but it appears you don’t get mine.
I find it fascinating how you and others with your apparent ideological bent routinely advocate for social controls except when it involves groups you have assigned victim status.
In your opinion pieces it is clear that you have no problem pushing social controls to force compliance into your defined moral box. For example forced bans on plastic bags. Forced bans on sugary drinks. Forced taxation and redistribution. You don’t trust people to make good decision, so your support government (the authority) to force people the act and behave in ways you deem acceptable.
But for blacks and other identified victim groups you make excuse after excuse after excuse. And you laud the heavy hand of government regulators to enforce the law with minimal oversight, but for some reasons cops must be significantly criticized and contained so they don’t trample on anyone’s civil liberties.
I don’t care what race or skin-tone belongs to a person that acts like Michael Brown did. His behavior was significantly out of control, significantly bad, significantly dangerous to himself, society and law enforcement. That is where we should be focused on this tragic event. Not that the cop did wrong… but that Michael Brown did wrong. And until all the Michael Brown’s of the world stop behaving in this angry, hostile and law-breaking manner, we will continue to have similar tragedies.
I’m trying to figure out what one thing has to do with the other. But my point is that I don’t think we know what happened because the witnesses contradict one another, the testimony by Wilson is difficult to believe, and he was not cross-examined. Not sure what that has to do with plastic bag bans or environmental regulation.
No, not really, unless of course you don’t want to believe it.
Or perhaps you’re just inclined to agree with it. The witnesses couldn’t even agree on where the confrontation occurred. You have Wilson not really being given tough questions when he at one point said Brown reached for his waistband and then later told the jurors he hadn’t even really thought about whether or not Brown had a gun. Then you have the strange behemoth references.
It’s not just eye witness testimony. There is forensic and ballistic evidence that corroborates Officer Wilson’s version of events. Do you give Dorian Johnson’s statement that Officer Wilson shot Brown in the back several times the same amount of credibility as Officer Wilson’s statement? Cause Johnson’s statement was rebuked by all 3 autopsies. BP is correct, you choose not to believe it.
Perhaps, but at least to me the bigger question is whether the second series of weapons firing were necessary.
Even though witnesses, black witnesses, testified that Brown charged at Officer Wilson the second time? Seriously, have a look at the Grand Jury transcripts sir.
Some said he did, some said he fell or was staggering. The doctors testified that he could have potentially still have charged after serious wounds, but again, all of that was within a mix contradictory testimony.
It is apparent that the Grand Jury, made of an equal cross section of the community, decided to follow the evidence and rule of law. 25 sessions, 60 witnesses, and every piece of evidence was shown to the Grand Jury. They were given 5 different charges to chooses from, from 1st degree murder to manslaughter, and could not find probable cause for any of the five charges. After hearing from every witness and seeing every piece of evidence!!!
Makes Me wonder how anyone could be of the opinion “damn the facts and take him to trial”. We are a nation of laws. Brown chose to not follow those laws on several occasions and chose his course of action when caught breaking said laws. He chose to resits, he chose to fight, he chose to put Officer Wilson’s life in jeopardy. And yet, you cannot bring yourselves to hold him accountable for his decisions.
Dave wrote:
> If you think all of the police killings of unarmed black “suspects”
> across the country … is not related to the legacy of slavery…
What is the killing of white and latino kids with toys related to?
http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/17/cop-shoots-17-year-old-boy-who-answers-d
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/No-charges-expected-for-cop-in-toy-gun-killing-5604765.php
Lynchings of blacks was common during the hundred years after the civil war. The rise of the Ku Klux Klan and its tacit acceptance and even active support by police forces in the south were the uglier, nastier side of Jim Crow America that have only recently begun to fade. Refer to the official police organized violence against civil rights activists in the south in the 1960s, which spread to the west coast, Chicago and New England states. That same kind of feeling is deep in many people. We are all trained to feel that way. That is why even black cops have killed unarmed black men citing a “fear for their lives”. Strange how it happens so much more often with black subjects or other “non-white-European” looking people. But to deny there is a systematic, embedded problem that is somehow unrelated to our national history is to be extremely naive or willfully ignorant (uninformed) and therefore unqualified to render an informed opinion.
In the Michael Brown incident, those of you who express the “slaveowners” outrage that the kid got what he deserved are not qualified because YOU WEREN’T THERE. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You are taking your facts as they have been hand picked by the local Ferguson and Clayton County D.A. spokesmen as gospel. I don’t make any claims for or against Michael Brown, but the shooting and killing of unarmed suspects not only hurts the family of the person killed, it creates greater distrust and fear of the police. It creates an occupying army mentality in the minds of the police. And given the history of slavery and race fears that are part and parcel of that past in Missouri I am quite Frankly astounded that the only a dozen or so buildings were torched on the first night. It could easily have been hundreds but for the work of black community organizers.
I’ll reply to myself and say that as far as the Grand Jury decision, I don’t feel it is to be trusted any more than the D.A.’s statements. I don’t know who said it, but it’s a quote worth repeating even if unattributed: “A D.A. can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich”. The reason is precisely because he can decide what evidence to present and what to leave out. It’s possible the federal investigation will come to a different conclusion when the totality of evidence is considered. Or maybe not. That doesn’t change the ugly thing that causes incidents like this to occur.
As far as the Grand Jury decision, I have no reason to trust it any more than the D.A.’s statements. I can’t remember who said it, but it’s a quote worth repeating even if unattributed: “A D.A. can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich”. The reason is precisely because he can decide what evidence to present and what to leave out. It’s possible the federal investigation will come to a different conclusion when the totality of evidence is considered. Or maybe not. That doesn’t change the ugly fact that far more unarmed young black men are being killed than any other racial group in proportion to the population.
I think it is unfortunate that you use such caustic references from 150 years ago to nullify the many solid points made here by reasonable voices. Fact is that tens of millions of African Americans go to work everyday, go to school, lead productive lives, and have little in common with the sad actions of a Michael Brown.
You would think from the name calling directed at the officer, he had said some horrible things or taken some wild actions. David here thinks that the officer had a chance to de-escalate the confrontation, but from my reading of the facts, I don’t see how that is possible.
My understanding is that he came upon young men walking down the middle of the street, and he asked them politely to use the sidewalk. No animosity there.
When he was brushed off, he again asked them to move to the sidewalk. No racial invective’s, no harsh words, no animosity. At about this time he put the APB alert together with these two young men, and knew that he might have two men who assaulted an immigrant shop keeper (1 or 2 felonies).
Step 3, he apparently tries to exit the car, or addressed Mr. Brown, and he is attacked by Mr. Brown (3rd felony?), who punches him and tries to take his gun! (4th felony) Punches from a standing 300-pound man is nothing to brush off, and I promise you if a criminal is trying to take a gun from a cop, he doesn’t have good intentions.
The gun dislodged in the car. There is blood in the car. This is pretty straight forward. The physical evidence matches the officer’s story.
The utterly sad facts are that 93% of black men are killed by other black men, and the random, unprovoked shooting of black men by white cops is pretty rare. (I recall a young man who was having a mental breakdown in San Francisco maybe 10-15 years ago who had a knife, and was shot. I think it cases like that we need alternate restraint methods.)
I’d also like to know if they found drugs in Mr. Brown’s system, which might help explain his actions. But just watch the police shows on cable TV, St. Louis is one of these cities where large areas are run by gangs, many of which are black. (I know of no large, active KKK group there.)
The police are well aware that they are eight times (8x) more likely to be shot by a young black man than by any other cohort. I know, a police officer gave me the statistic. A few years after I learned this fact, a motorcycle cop in Oakland who pulled over a car of young black men was gunned down for no apparent reason. When his fellow officers pursued the suspects to a house, two more were killed. In both instances they may have broken police operating procedures, and they paid with their lives.
I don’t think we express the “slaveowners outrage”; we simply have read the facts, and know common sense. President Obama and Eric Holder put all of their juice behind the Brown family, and they apparently came up with nothing. (Holder and Obama have made race relations far worse.)
LOL, yes the community organizers did a great job in holding the count to only a dozen or so. Are you kidding me?
I see you perspective, but disagree based on the testimony.
What about Michael Brown’s responsibility?
How could you disagree based on the testimony – it was contradictory and the witnesses could not be cross-examined?
This was the prosecuting attorney… not the defense attorney.
The prosecuting attorney clearly didn’t want to prosecute a police officer – that’s not really that meaningful. From the start people complained that he couldn’t be objective and needed to turn it over to a special prosecutor. He refused. Maybe tomorrow I’ll break down someo of the contradictary testimony.
Correct, because McCulloch saw the evidence and that there was nothing to prosecute. So he had the Grand Jury convene as a measure of checks and balances. The system worked.
One thing to keep in mind is that MO’s “use of force” laws are more cop-friendly than some other states. So any prosecuting attorney and the grand jury would be held to those legal standards.
So your point about contradictory testimony isn’t really useful. There was contradictory testimony on both sides… I would say much more on the witnesses that came out against the cops.
And I absolutely disagree with your assumption that a DA would not want to prosecute a police officer if justified. You don’t know that.
Then why was there such a demand to take the matter out of his hands into the hands of the AGs office?
My point on the contradictory testimony was in response to yours that the testimony was convincing. Remember my positions is not that they should have indicted him.
Obama and Holder likely wanted to pull it into the AG’s office. Playing the race card and racial injustice drama is right up their alley.
Even Dr. Ben Carson has stated that these politicians use race to manipulate people.
“Then why was there such a demand to take the matter out of his hands into the hands of the AGs office?”
It was a tactical ploy by the Brown family’s attorneys who also predicted that the grand jury would not indict Wilson. They believed the DA would not step aside and this allows them to claim it was not fair. The claim plays into their it is not fair whine. This is the same tactic they took when the DA in the Martin/Zimmerman case chose not to charge Zimmerman stating that no crime could be proven. The political pressure was so great they got their trial with the outcome predicted by the local DA. What a waste of resources. All to appease the black community. Since the grand jury result Governor Nixon has stated that there will be no special prosecutor with a second grand jury or preliminary hearing. The state action is done. There will be not federal charges or civil lawsuit. Again look at the Zimmerman case. The elected DA has an obligation to seek justice. By going to the grand jury and releasing the testimony the entire nation has all of the facts. If a prosecutor does not believe in the validity of the charges they should not be asking for an indictment or conviction. By providing the grand jurors with all of the evidence and the correct law the prosecutors did their jobs. They received the opinion of citizens on the validity of the charges.
David constantly complains about how the Yolo DA overcharges criminal cases. The elected DA did not overcharge this case. If he had simply rejected the case like the DA in Zimmerman’s case that would have left a great deal of pressure on the governor. With this approach the public gets to see the evidence that the DA had, and in a much more public way.
Video of Michael Brown stealing cigars and shoving store clerk. He looks big enough to play offensive line for the Rams. I can easily see how Wilson would think his life was in jeopardy with this huge guy coming at him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJ66g8f5XOM
From NBC News:
MORE
NIGHTLY NEWS
TODAY
MEET THE PRESS
DATELINE
Stay informed. Sign up for breaking news alerts direct to your inbox.
[ privacy ]
MICHAEL BROWN SHOOTING
400STORIES
STORYLINEMichael Brown, an unarmed black teen, was shot and killed by police in Ferguson, Missouri.
an hour
What They Saw: Read Ferguson Witness Accounts
Ad Info | Ad Feedback
Ad Info | Ad Feedback
advertisement
Ad Info | Ad Feedback
The grand jury investigating the police shooting of Michael Brown heard from more than 60 witnesses — including some who saw the confrontation from their cars, homes or the street. The documents show the jurors who ultimately decided not to indict Officer Darren Wilson had to sift through accounts that often conflicted with each other. Here are some excerpts from the police interviews and testimony:
A person watching from their apartment balcony:
A person watching from the street:
Person in a third-floor apartment
Person pulling up near the scene in his car:
Person walking on the street:
NBC News’ Tracy Connor, Monica Alba, Aliza Nadi, Mark Schone, Lindsay Perez and Tom Winter contributed to this report.
David Greenwald: “How could you disagree based on the testimony – it was contradictory and the witnesses could not be cross-examined?”
Legal analysts have pointed out that if a grand jury wouldn’t indict in this case, there is no chance the officer would have ever been found guilty of anything at trial. The point is that the grand jury listened to all the testimony, the police office had absolutely no opportunity to present any evidence in his defense to the grand jury, and the grand jury still would not indict. Should the case have gone to trial, Brown would not be the one on trial, the police officer would. If any of these witnesses were questioned at trial, their credibility would have been challenged by the defense, not by the prosecution. So your comment makes absolutely no sense.
Anon,
I believe David said, at 11:08 AM:
So I think he was in agreement that evidence to convict Officer Wilson was and is probably deficient, but that it seems hard to believe that there was not enough evidence to indict.
If any of you would like to take it upon yourself to review the grand jury testimony, here you go.
Both Wilson and Brown were 6 foot 4 inches tall. Brown had the weight advantage, but Wilson had the gun advantage.
Brown was shot more than ten times, the final bullet to the 18 year old kid was to his head.
In the good old days, the police used to use a lot more blunt force flashlights, billy clubs, night sticks, beavertail saps, sap gloves to subdue people.
Over the past few decades, and especially since Rodney King’s beating, blunt force seems to be off the menu. It has been somewhat replaced by the Taser, but their cost and the increasing awareness of the risk of death seems to have blunted its use.
I wonder if the elimination of blunt force from the police toolkit has somehow led to a situation where “if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail” kind of a situation, where the police have come to see many situations that may have in the past been responded to with blunt force instead getting treated as a situation to shoot.
Physical confrontations without the use of an alternate weapon often boil down to wrestling matches which can quickly become a pulled gun or a struggle for an officer’s gun, and many times a physical struggle is justified as a reason to shoot.
None of this to say that people weren’t beaten for unjust reasons, but they also weren’t killed, either.
When cops carried blunt force weapons they also knew how to use them in a way to inflict pain in a way that gained submission but also in a way that avoided major injury, since major injury didn’t necessarily work in their favor. They seemed to have a spectrum of force available instead of a binary choice of shooting or not shooting.
More race baiting by Al Sharpton and Eric Holder.
Toss around an immigrant shop owner, and steal, and you’ll be looked for.
Walk down the middle of the street and jaw with an officer, and the radar goes up.
Have a 300-pound 6’4″ young man reach through the officer’s door, and try to take his gun… and things won’t end well. Charge the officer, and things won’t end well.
This isn’t about police racism. This is about stupidity, anti social behavior, and a series of poor choices.
David forgot to write that Michael Brown’s Father, who also has a criminal background, then flip flopped and declared “Burn this B—h down!”
Not the best advice, quite ironic, too, in that most of the businesses that were burned are owned by “people of color”.
Second, Obama played the race card when the Harvard professor was arrested by saying “The police acted stupidly”. This our President said, before reading the police report, before knowing most of the facts. Comments like this are why many feel that Obama has moved race relations backwards. But AG Eric Holder is far worse.
You’re confusing his father with his stepfather.
That was his step father.
Was Michael Brown living with the step father? I had a step father too who for the most part was more my dad than my real father ever was.
With a step father as militant as that maybe he had an effect on Michael Brown’s attitude.
Finally, the raw truth from a trusted leader with all the credentials needed:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/11/24/watch-rudy-giuliani-hits-back-after-being-called-white-supremacist-dyson-meet-press
David–it isn’t just eyewitness testimony, but plenty of physical evidence that lines up exactly with officer Wilson’s version of the events. One of the most compelling pieces of physical evidence supporting that Brown came back toward the officer was the presence of his blood-stains on the street over 25 feet beyond (further up the street from) where his body was at death. There is plenty of other physical evidence, including the locations of shell casings, etc. that support the relative positions of Brown and Wilson. Do some homework, play detective, and take a look at the plethora of physical (as well as forensic) evidence.
Its hard to reconcile how someone is so adamant about supporting the rights of defendants is now so zealous in discounting the wealth of evidence;, testimonial, physical, and forensic that goes way beyond any standard of reasonable doubt in exonerating the officer. It’s almost as if you are asking for proof of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt; and if you look at all the evidence that standard is nearly met or met!
Just looks pathetic.
By the way, there are some incidents of police violence, including on minorities, that I’ve read about and have seen videos of on-line; where the police truly do appear to be out-of-line and applying unneccessary force, and even caused some deaths because of poor judgement by the police. The case of Brown is a relatively weak one in that regard.
It’s really too bad about the property damage done in response to the grand jury decision. It undermines any credible message.
I think an alternative and more interesting effective response would have been for concerned African-Americans to openly discuss and maybe exercise their second amendment right to own guns, maybe in the fashion of the Black Panthers in a past generation.
It’s a response that white conservatives might better understand.
I agree, to protect themselves against the high rate of crime in there area, which isn’t committed by the police.
“I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air…. A riot is the language of the unheard.” – MLK Jr.
1
Jaroslaw “Jerry” Waszczuk.
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-339-1982
Cell: 209-663-2977
Fax: 209-247-1089
E-mail: ucdmclaborchat@comcast.net
March 7, 2013
The Honorable Ralph J. Hotter
Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor
Mrak Hail, Fifth Floor
University of California, Davis One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
Re: Retaliation and Interference Complaint Dear Vice Chancellor Hexter,
Enclosed is a copy of my Retaliation and Interference Complaint against certain individuals who are managing UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento, California where I was employed for over thirteen years and where my employment was abruptly and without valid and legitimate reason terminated on December 7, 2012.
In addition to the managing officers at the UC Davis Medical Center who are included in the complaint, UC Davis Chief of Police, Matt Carmichael, and his subordinate, Lieutenant James Barbour, are included in the complaint for alleged act(s) of provocation and conspiracy with other individuals listed in the complaint in an attempt to murder me on May 31, 2012 or send me to the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit in a state of extreme harm.
It is very disturbing and also unthinkable that UC Davis leaders should use the UC Davis Police Force to resolve labor relations disputes with employees who are making complaints. The original Retaliation and Interference Complaint included approximately 1500 pages of documents and photos that I sent to your office yesterday by U.S. Certified mail.
I would like to inform you that I am representing myself in this matter until such time as I decide to hire an attorney at law.
If you have any questions or concerns, the University Of California Legal Counsel or other investigators may contact me at their convenience in the event that you decide to review the complaint and investigate tie allegations.
CC: UCDMC Principal; HR Labor Relations Consultant,’ Gina Harwood; UC President, Mark Yudof; UC Regents Office; UC Davis Chancellor, Linda Katehi
wdf1
“It’s really too bad about the property damage done in response to the grand jury decision. It undermines any credible message.”
I agree with the first sentence and completely disagree with the second. The damage done by the rioting is separate and distinct from the credible message and should be seen as such. Each action should be judged on its own merits.
The actions of the rioters are completely unjustifiable.
The concerns of the peaceful protesters should be taken seriously and evaluated based on their merits.
To lump the two together is nothing more than a means to deflect from the root problems which need to be addressed and pretend that there are never any wrongs to be addressed by the over use of police force.
On the issue of indictment and the performance of the DA, the criticism appears either desperate in attempt to perpetuate the “racist law enforcement” narrative, or simply the differing opinion of legal scholars on how a DA should conduct a Grand Jury process.
The voice of those stuck on a perpetual racism template should be silenced and ignored.
With respect to the differing legal scholar opinion… it is just that… an opinion. There is no law nor precedent on the books that demands a DA first decide to prosecute and then steer the jury toward this conclusion. There is also more current pressure for DAs to consider the tremendous expense of trying high-profile cases that have very low probability of achieving any conviction.
The argument that the DA just “dumped on” and “overwhelmed” the Grand Jury with evidence and testimony is baloney especially in consideration of the people claiming it… people that routinely jump on the argument that DAs prosecute lacking enough evidence… and that they do so only for PR and political reasons.
Then we get to police misconduct or negligence.
Personally I wish that the officer had not shot Michael Brown or had not kept shooting him until he was fatally hit. But then I am an armchair quarterback. I am Einstein in hindsight. I don’t have to make those decision in split seconds like the police.
Frankly
“Rather, they have the option of tak-ing a more dispassionate approach, even if it lessens the likelihood of winning an indictment.”
I agree with much of your post. However, this comment caught my eye. This would be valid in my opinion if the “dispassionate approach” were coupled with an equal representation of the information. It becomes a self serving approach when the evidence is presented in such a way as to get one’s desired outcome whether that is either in favor of or against indictment. In a number of accounts of the presentation of materials it was pointed out that witnesses seeming to favor the officers account were soft balled on questions as was the officer himself, while those presenting a differing view were questioned much more aggressively. In my view, information to be presented “dispassionately” should be presented by someone who has no stake in the outcome.
I find the final chose of words “winning an indictment” very telling. The default assumption here is that there is something to be “won”or “lost”, not necessarily a just outcome.