Beats me why the police don't release photos of the officers injuries.
Incidentally the Ferguson Police Chief sounds a bit of a bozo, there were dashcams and bodycams available for officers but he hadn't got round to issuing them yet..
Last man standing, Officer Wilson and Brown's body..
How Strong Is the Legal Case
Against Darren Wilson?
By Pema Levy
Filed: 8/19/14 at 12:58 PM | Updated: 8/19/14 at 1:37 PM
The search for justice in the death of Michael Brown, the black
unarmed teenager killed in Ferguson, Missouri, will eventually
move away from the streets and into the courtroom.
Darren Wilson, the police officer who killed Brown on August 9, could stand
trial for his actions. St. Louis County is conducting a criminal investigation.
When that is completed, county prosecutors will determine whether
to charge Wilson with a crime—Reuters reported that the case could
be given to an investigating grand jury as early as this week to decide
whether Wilson will be indicted.
If Wilson is charged, the question will no longer be about the frayed
race relations in St. Louis and its environs, the frequency with which
police kill unarmed black men, or the militarization of America’s
police forces. The question will be: Did Wilson kill Brown legally?
More facts about what happened on that fateful Saturday afternoon
will likely come to light. Right now, accounts from eyewitnesses,
police and a friend of the officer involved give different accounts
with different legal implications.
What we know—and don’t know
Witnesses and police have different versions of the events that led up
to Brown being shot dead. Both the St. Louis County police and the
FBI, as well as the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice,
are investigating what happened.
According to what is known so far, at 12:01 pm on Saturday, August 9,
Brown and a friend, Dorian Johnson, were walking down the middle
of Canfield Drive, a residential street in Ferguson, when a police car
pulled up near them. The officer in the car, Darren Wilson, ordered
the two young men to move to the sidewalk.
According to the account of the St. Louis County police, Wilson
attempted to get out of his car and Brown pushed him back inside.
A struggle ensued inside the car, in which Brown tried to take the
officer’s gun. A shot was fired from inside the car. The officer then
stepped out of the car and shot Brown, who died of his injuries.
But eye witnesses, including Johnson, tell a different version of events.
According to Johnson, after Officer Wilson told the two men to get
on the sidewalk, he slammed his brakes, put his car into reverse,
and attempted to open the door of his police car. The door hit Brown
and then bounced shut again. In an interview with MSNBC last week,
Johnson described how Wilson reached out and grabbed Brown by the neck.
The altercation became like a “tug-of-war,” with Wilson trying to pull
Brown inside the car and Brown pulling away.
Wilson fired off a shot which Johnson said hit Brown. The two young
men began running away. After another shot or more was fired,
Johnson said his friend turned around with his hands raised in the air
and said, “I don’t have a gun, stop shooting!” The officer, then facing
Brown, fired several more shots and Brown fell to the ground.
A second eyewitness, Piaget Crenshaw, who saw the events from her
apartment and videotaped the aftermath, told CNN that she saw
Brown and the officer struggle and that it looked like the officer was
trying to pull Brown into the car. When that didn’t work, she said the
officer chased after Brown and shot multiple times, though none of
those shots appeared to hit Brown. In the end, Crenshaw said, Brown
“turned around and then was shot multiple times.”
After St. Louis County performed an initial autopsy, the Brown family
lawyer hired a veteran medical examiner, Dr. Michael M. Baden of
New York, to do a second autopsy because of doubts about whether
the police investigation would be fair. According to the New York Times,
Baden’s autopsy showed that Brown was struck at least six times
and that the bullets entered from the front of his body. The Justice
Department announced Sunday that they would take the unusual step
of performing a third autopsy.
About 10 minutes before Brown and Johnson were stopped by Officer Wilson,
video footage released by the police last week showed the two young
men taking cigars from a convenience store—footage that enraged the
Ferguson community, which saw the release of the video as an
attempt to smear the dead teenager. The Ferguson police later
clarified that Wilson did not know that Brown was a suspect in a
robbery when he approached the two young men for walking in the
middle of the street.
Much of the legal case will hinge on what new facts come to light and
what forensic evidence will reveal about exactly what took place that
Wilson’s side of the story
On Monday, Officer Wilson’s side of the story emerged for the first time.
A friend of the officer called into a radio show to tell the story and a
source confirmed to CNN that it matched the version of events Wilson
In that version, told by a woman who identified herself as “Josie,”
Wilson asked the two men to get on the sidewalk. He then heard
a report of the robbery and a description of the suspects, which
matched Brown and Johnson. When Wilson then tried to get out of his car,
Brown pushed him back in and punched him in the face, and then
reached for his gun. The two tussled, Brown had the gun pointed at
Wilson’s hip, but Wilson pushed it away before it went off in the car.
The two men then began to flee and Wilson gave chase, ordering
them to stop, Josie said. In her account, Brown then turned around
and began to taunt Wilson, saying he would not shoot them. Then
Brown charged at Wilson at full speed, at which point Wilson opened fire.
“All of the sudden, [Brown] just started to bum rush him,” Josie told
radio host Dana Loesch. “He just started coming at him, full-speed,
and so [Wilson] just started shooting, and [Brown] just kept coming.”
“So [Wilson] really thinks [Brown] was on something, because he just
kept coming. It was unbelievable.”
Did Wilson act “reasonably”?
"Did the police officer have a reasonable fear either for his own safety
or the safety of others?"
That, according to Peter Joy, a criminal justice expert at the Washington
University School of Law in St. Louis, is the central question in cases
like this. “It's a question of, 'Was it reasonable to act in the way the
police officer did?' Being reasonable would be triggered by, 'Is there
a reasonable risk of harm?'"
Whether or not the police officer knew Brown was unarmed when either
fleeing or surrendering becomes important here. “Assuming the
answer [is] he knew he was unarmed, I think that, by itself, would
mean no justification for the shooting,” Joy said.
According to Dorian Johnson, the friend who was accompanying Brown
and witnessed the shooting at close quarters, Brown said out loud he
was unarmed before Wilson fired the final deadly shots.
“If he was trying to surrender and the police officer knew he was
unarmed—or even if he was armed, if he’s trying to surrender—then
at least the police should tell him to unarm himself or have him stay
there with his hands up and call for backup,” Joy said. Joy stressed
that the ultimate verdict will depend on how the facts unfold.
The version of events told by Wilson’s friend gives Wilson a more
reasonable fear for his safety than the accounts of other witnesses thus far.
“Speaking hypothetically, if there was a physical confrontation and
if he reached for the officer's gun... then if he charged at the officer,
those facts put together would strengthen the police officer's self
defense claim," said Jens David Ohlin, a criminal law professor at
Cornell University Law School. "Each one in isolation might not be
enough...they are the building blocks for a self-defense claim."
Ohlin added that the accusation of charging might not ultimately be
as important as Josie’s claim that Brown tried to get the officer’s gun.
“The charging by itself doesn't indicate necessarily a risk to the
officer's life, but a suspect reaching for the gun of a police officer,
that potentially puts the police officer's life in jeopardy," he said.
Whether or not that actually happened is “an incredibly important
piece of the puzzle."
“This account is another illustration of the fact that we don't know
what happened,” Joy said. If it turns out that Josie’s account is what
happened, he added, “it could support the position that the officer
was in fear for his safety and the safety of the community when he
shot and killed Mr. Brown. He could have been thinking that if he
didn't stop him, Mr. Brown might be able to take his gun and use it
on him or possibly use it to harm others.”
The “reasonable” standard often gives the benefit of the doubt to
police in these circumstances. They need not actually be in danger,
only reasonably believe that they are—a subjective standard.
Moreover, the courts often give deference to police, whose job is
to protect the public and make snap judgments in dangerous and
The fleeing felon
"At one point in American history it was not uncommon for state law
to permit officers to use deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon,"
said Frank O. Bowman III, criminal law professor at University of
Missouri School of Law. Those state laws made it easier for police officers
(often white) to shoot fleeing suspects (often black) without repercussions,
but in 1985, the Supreme Court declared in Tennessee v. Garner
that police cannot use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon who is
not perceived to be dangerous.
In the Garner case, a Memphis police officer responded to a report of
a home burglary and, once at the scene, saw a figure dash across the
backyard. Using his flashlight, the officer could see that the figure
was a teenager who appeared to be unarmed.
The officer ordered the suspect to halt. When the teen instead tried
to flee by climbing a fence, the officer shot and killed him. That
fleeing felon turned out to be 15-year-old Edward Garner. He was 5’4”,
about 110 pounds, unarmed, and black. He had on him a purse and $10.
A majority of the Supreme Court held that in order to use deadly force
against a fleeing felon, the police must have probable cause to assume
that the felon poses a significant risk of harm to the officer or the
community. The shooting of Garner was, therefore, unconstitutional.
How does this affect the case of Michael Brown? Until Josie shared
Wilson’s account, the known facts indicated that Brown was either
fleeing or surrendering when he was shot. Assuming he was fleeing
or surrendering, not charging, the facts that would suggest it was
likely illegal to shoot Brown.
It’s unclear at this point whether Darren Wilson knew that Brown was
suspected of robbing a convenience store. If he didn’t know, then the
robbery plotline is, as Joy put it, a “red herring.” If he did realize the
two were suspects, it’s possible he thought they were therefore dangerous,
even though no weapon was used in the “strong-arm” robbery, as
police are calling it.
What if Brown did assault Wilson and try to take his gun before fleeing
—the account put forward by the St. Louis County police? Would that
make him a dangerous fleeing felon?
“It’s conceivable that there might be a determination that Mr. Brown
had committed an assault that was equivalent to a felony against a
police officer and that might be viewed legally as a justification for
the use of force—and in this instance, deadly force,” Joy said, but
assuming Brown didn’t charge at Wilson, as his friend recounted,
other legal experts say that argument would be shaky at best.
Assuming "that Brown breaks away from the police officer and the
police car, is not armed, and is at some distance away from him—not
presenting any immediate threat to the officer or anybody else—then
it's plainly illegal to shoot him,” said Bowman.
Did a struggle with the police officer turn Brown into a violent fleeing felon?
After all, police department’s account claims Officer Wilson’s face was
hit during the altercation and he was treated for his wounds at a hospital.
Not according to Bowman. “If you’re a police officer and I walk up and
punch you in the nose and turn around and run away, you can’t pull
out your glock and shoot me in the back. You just can’t. The law insists
on far more restraint than that from police officers.” he said.
Generally, the law requires more than an altercation to justify the
use of deadly force against someone who is fleeing the police,
like assaulting an officer with a deadly weapon, or committing
a crime with a deadly weapon.
“It’s pretty hard to think of any legal justification for the officer firing at
this guy once contact is broken and the guy is moving away,” Bowman said.
Bowman was a little wary of Josie’s account, but stressed that an
investigation will have to sort fact from fiction. “The idea that,
once out of the car, the kid would then charge an obviously armed
policeman seems to me less probable,” he said “but, who knows?
We'll see what the actual investigation decides.”
Officer Wilson played it bad anyway, he shouldn't have let Brown get up close to him in the first place.
We see cops getting shot or beat up all the time on youtube because they let the perpetrators get too close; maybe I should offer my services as a PC wargaming champion to teach police forces how to stay out of trouble?
Kids are not 18, 6' 2" and 300lbs. Kids don't go to college. Adults do that. He was old enough to join the military and to vote, he wasn't a kid. Unless you are working under the ACA version of a child which seems to be 26.
Your request for what is proven vs not proven is laughable. Video of a robbery which you seem to think could have been a drug deal gone bad... Have you asked your families opinion about this yet? With so many family in LE I would think you would have talked to them about it already. Gotten their opinions expert or otherwise on the situation. How would they have handled the situation?
As do I. That is what I have been advocating from the start. Wont you agree with me that a 6'2" 300lb man attacking a cop was also excessive for a person who has been described as a gentle giant. Everything I read and hear in the media has been in the theme of poor child was murdered by the cop. But wether accurate or not it sure sells papers.
HAD to gun down the black in self-defence..Smile
Because he was black? You really are a two faced prick arn't you?
I've put Romeo on ignore. I don't think he is really a racist but he plays one well on the internet. Enjoy his "views".
Baldimo said: I've put Romeo on ignore.
Good, now I can say things about you behind your back..
Incidentally are you a yank? A lot of them seem to have gone soft in the head just lately. We English know how to deal with black riots..
"At one hundred yards, bust their asses, Fire!"
I think we get it, youre a racist douche bag with an extreme narcissistic complex and you require a bunch of no-brain toadies to suck you off on-line. Ye we get it.
You can now go back to your parent's basement and enjoy your stupid war games
Hey Farmerman you're squatting on red indian land in Pennsylvania, you can't get more racist than that..
Give it back to the Shawnee, Susquehannock, Erie, Iroquois and Delaware!
you have no idea of what youre talking about . Pa was an ENGLISH colony dorko. I live on Nanticoke land asshole.
Your profile says you're in Pa, that's Pennsylvania ain't it?
You'd better sign up for some navigation lessons!
Meanwhile give your land back to the Nanticokes or people will think you're a land-grabbing racist..
why should I sign up for navigation lessons? Iroquois isn't even a tribe, Shawnees didn't occupy anything within 350 miles of us in colonial times, and there is no Native American tribe named the Delawares.
My land is deeded from the "Nottinghm lots" which was part of a ChasII grant to the Penns (The Brits stole it from Conestogas-and a bunch of nere do well Scots Irish killed the last 7 of them)
stop reading e-comic books
Farmerman said: Iroquois isn't even a tribe, Shawnees didn't occupy anything within 350 miles of us in colonial times, and there is no Native American tribe named the Delawares.
Here's a map for you mate, I think you might need it..
Gotta wonder what woulda happened if the two young men had been littering at the same time.
They woulda been shot in the head several more times.
The argument that the Glenn Beck Lickspittle Society is forwarding is that they don't want the cop to stand charges?
And you want the cop to stand charges before the investigation is complete, before the grand jury hears all of the existing evidence?
This cop may very well deserve to be indicted, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced, but it is certainly conceivable that there isn't sufficient evidence to indict, and under different circumstances the grand jury might take a pass, but that will never happen here. If, as the saying goes, with the right prosecutor a grand jury would indict a canned ham, what are the cop's chances when the members of the grand jury are afraid that if they don't indict him, Ferguson will be burned to the ground?
Many of the protesters are quite clear on what they want: A conviction. Not a full investigation, not a grand jury indictment, not a fair trial, but a conviction. Unfortunately for the cop, there isn't a Gary Cooper or Glenn Ford wearing a badge to hold off the lynch mob with a shotgun and sixshooter. Instead, he has a disgraceful governor going on TV stating there must be justice for the family of Michael Brown and a vigorous prosecution!
He also described the incident as " 10 days ago, a police officer shot and killed Michael Brown (dramatic pause) in broad daylight" Before anyone fires back with silly nonsense about how the governor was being factually correct, listen to Nixon's comments. Clearly the term "in broad daylight" was intended to signify a crime was committed and his manner of speaking the words makes that intent even more clear. Nixon is a lawyer and served as the State's Attorney General. He has to know how inappropriate it was for a governor to make those comments, but, unfortunately, he's also a politician and knows how advantageous they can be.
State Senator Jamilah Nasheed has been pushing for the county prosecutor to recuse himself because he is white and his father (a cop) was shot and killed by a black man, and she told him:
'If you should decide to not indict this police officer, the rioting we witnessed this past week will seem like a picnic compared to the havoc that will likely occur, because the black community will never accept that there was an impartial investigation from your office."
And there is any chance that the grand jury will not indict?
There are outside agitators and criminals, looting, shooting firearms and throwing molotov cocktails. There is Media frenzy with pure opinion taking the place of factual reporting, and efforts to make rather than report the news, and there are government officials prejudging the cop and inappropriately influencing jury pools. It is disgusting and depressing.
Again, the copy may be guilty of murder and the black citizens may have an entirely legitimate complaint about racism in the ranks of the Ferguson police, but the cop is as entitled to justice as the Michael Brown family.
I don't think anyone here is under any obligation to hold off until all the evidence is in before rendering an opinion on whether or not the cop acted in self-defense, acted excessively in self-defense, or gunned down an essentially innocent man in broad daylight.
Were not public officials in Ferguson, St Louis County or Missouri and we're not members of the press. There's not much harm caused by us popping off with a verdict before the facts are known, unless it's to ourselves, by looking like fools when all the evidence is in, but this is yet another incident where the significance is expanded out of all proportion, where there is a stampede to judgment, and where a person's opinion of how the act went down is somehow an indicator of their moral character.
The lines have already been drawn and if you think there's any chance that the cop may not have done anything wrong you're either heartless, racist or both. If you think it's in anyway relative that the victim acted like a thug, you're a racist (which you proved as soon as you used the word "thug"). And if you think that people who throw Molotov cocktails, loot stores and scream profanity at police and reporters are thugs not protesters, than you probably are a racist too.
This does not happen when whites kill whites, when blacks kill blacks and when blacks kill whites. It only happens when whites kill blacks. That blacks have been, for most of this country's history, victims of institutionalized racism may explain it, but it doesn't excuse it, and it does nothing to combat whatever lingering racism still exists.
Your "map" seems to take accuracy with a grain a salt.
It lists tribes, federations and clans on the same sheet. And its rong about all those locations in colonial ND revolutionary times (If you notice itself claimsa sort of "Origins" of clans and tribes. Its not scholarly but its good enough for a Brit who thinks one dimensionlly
Also, Pa is as big s Wales and Scotlnd combined so your sense of "place" in Pa is governed by the old saying that a Brit thinks "100 miles is a long distance" As I said, NONE of thse tribes qere evr involved in ny land upon which my county resides. The Nanticokes themselves now live in Sussex County Delaware.
As your own map states there are NO designted tribal lands claimed by any tribes in Pa (with the exception of a small area around Butler Pa (almost 350 miles west) and In the Allegheny National Forest land (almost 300 miles NW of us)).
You have to be a bit more scholarly in your search for tribal associations in US history. Tribes were very mobil and preyed upon each other first. The Spanish Brits and French all used these tribal associations and fickle loyalties as part of their means to deal with "savages"
And you want the cop to stand charges before the investigation is complete,
I DO want the lickspittles to stop this stupid uninformed upport of an event that, from its appearance is certainly not a proportional punishment now is it?
You've ignored the Glenn Becks clamoring to NOT try him by merely reversing the charges --good, LAZY, but good.
YOU, Baldimo, were the one who called him a kid...not I. That is why I had the word "kid" in quotes. I used the term "young man."
Kids are not 18, 6' 2" and 300lbs. Kids don't go to college. Adults do that. He was old enough to join the military and to vote, he wasn't a kid. Unless you are working under the ACA version of a child which seems to be 26.
I was quoting you...so save that lecture for when you are looking into a mirror.
I did not say I thought it was a drug deal gone bad. You had identified it as a robbery...and I said that one could not logically identify it as a robbery from what was there...and then gave two hypotheticals for what it could also be.
Your request for what is proven vs not proven is laughable. Video of a robbery which you seem to think could have been a drug deal gone bad...
Stop distorting what I am saying, Baldimo...because it is not going to work.
No...why should I?
Have you asked your families opinion about this yet?
With so many family in LE I would think you would have talked to them about it already. Gotten their opinions expert or otherwise on the situation. How would they have handled the situation?
I am much more interested in what people like you think.