The Michael Brown Case
- Thread starter Tirin
- Start date
I think it's kind of fucked, maybe tumblr is just getting to my head, but I think it's kind of awful that Wilson's getting away with it. Really wish someone would have recorded it.
Too many black kids getting shot. It's really not okay.
Too many black kids getting shot. It's really not okay.
Yes.
If I possibly assaulted a police officer and got shot, I don't think I would be referred to as a kid/child/boy/whatever to make it look like I was young and innocent.
Although it's never necessarily a bad thing when a killing goes to trial, the point is that it would have made no difference. They would have wasted time, money, and resources to basically say the same thing. There isn't enough evidence to suggest Darren Wilson shot out of anything but fear for his life.
Also, what does Mike Brown being black have to do with anything?
Last edited:
Not every encounter that is a white cop and a black guy is a race thing just because it is a more propagated stereotype. Not to say anybody here has said anything of the sort, but I hate those who want to make everything about what they're, not who they're, and what they did to meet their fate. Now here is a white baby to make you more sympathetic of my position
Which is a problem, because Darren Wilson A) should not have been so afraid for his life, and B) was reported by eyewitnesses to have shot Brown at a time when no credible threat was presented, which for most people constitutes "enough evidence." The issue is that under Missouri state law, he'd have to be proven to have premeditated the shooting to be convicted of anything for it, because he shot the guy as a policeman. While the grand jury probably did everything right here, lawmakers did not.
Caused Wilson to fear for his life when Brown was uncooperative.
I have to agree he seems like a pretty big puss. May be one of those guys that never got into a real fight because of their size. Still though, most witnesses agree that there was a struggle in the car. Wilson was likely hit and Brown likely had his hand on the gun at least once when it fired, barring any conspiracy theories of course. Mike Brown then tried to run off.
After that, according to physical evidence, it would pretty much have to work out like this:
1) Wilson was telling the truth. Brown stopped running, turned toward Wilson, and started coming at him. Wilson missed the first few shots hitting when he was only about 170-180 feet from the squad car. Brown continued moving toward Wilson making it about 20-30 feet closer before collapsing.
2) Wilson shot at Brown while he was fleeing, hitting him around the same 170-180 mark. Brown then managed to stop his momentum, turn around, and charge Wilson, making it 20-30 feet. Doing all of that in 2-4 seconds all while getting mag-dumped.
3) Brown was hit much worse in the car than either realized and you can't actually determine when he changed direction or how fast he moved. Obviously, this one can be true at the same time as either option above, it just makes the distances and timing meaningless.
Also, eye witnesses can't assess threat. They're subjective opinion doesn't mean anything to the law. They can simply give their eye witness account. Most of the eye witness accounts were inconsistent with each other and the physical evidence. If their account contradicts physical evidence as well as many other accounts, their testimony won't and shouldn't be taken seriously in a court of law.
This was confirmed?
Last edited:
While some eyewitness accounts agree that Brown was charging Wilson when he was shot, others say he stopped and turned around with his hands up. If the latter is the case, then that would be how eyewitnesses confirm that Brown was not presenting a credible threat to Wilson's life at the time. Additionally, and unarmed and stoned teenager shouldn't be considered life-threatening in any case, even a large one, except with the argument that he could have taken the cop's gun. Which really makes it the cop's fault for making that a possibility, either by not having the training to deal with that situation, or for bringing the gun in the first place.
Which part? Objectively, it hasn't been definitively proven that white cops, including Wilson, are more afraid of black people than white people under the same circumstances. It just appears that white cops get scared enough to shoot black people with a disproportionately high frequency.
A detailed explanation of the physical evidence found at the crime scene. It seems to be consistent with Officer Wilson's testimony.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/
Sorry, I was in a hurry when I made my post and forgot to detail what lead to the scenarios I posted. Blood was found 20-30 feet east of where Brown's body finally fell. Some eye witnesses said Wilson shot at Brown from behind, causing him to turn with his hands up, where Wilson unloaded another couple of shots, killing Brown where he stood. Obviously they were mistaken. However, if they were telling the truth about Wilson shooting from behind, then that means Brown would have had to turn and hustle that 20-30 feet in a hurry, as all the shots were fired within about a 6 second time span.
Eye witness accounts support Wilson's account about as much as they contradict it. If you take any into consideration, you must take all of them into consideration. That basically leads you back to square one, which is relying solely on physical evidence. As I said, Wilson was never found guilty or not guilty, and at this point, if new evidence comes in, he can be tried and found guilty of his crimes. However, if it went to trial now, there is absolutely no way he would have gotten a guilty verdict under these circumstances. The only real difference between Wilson and a civilian in this case is that he had the duty and legal right to pursue the threat.
And how exactly is a 6'4" 300lbs 18 year old not able to pose a threat? Would being 2 years older have actually made him any more of a threat? And how was Wilson supposed to know he had some THC in his blood?
As for the training to deal with someone attempting to take his gun, Mike Brown wasn't successful. Cops dying by their own gun is not actually all that uncommon. Attempting to engage in a physical altercation with the person that's trying to take it is likely not part of the preventative training and having it taken would not make the officer responsible for his own death. The legal responsibility for a person being assaulted never falls on the victim, nor should it. Mike Brown should not have assaulted Wilson, should not have tried to grab his gun in the first place, and should not have finally "surrendered" in such a threatening way.
I dunno man. I've never seen the stats comparing the number of blacks and whites in similar socioeconomic conditions that have been shot by the police. Could be true. Lots of cops out there, plenty of racists, there's probably some overlap.
Last edited:
Since he may have been shot in (by) the car... no, none of that is necessarily the case. Wouldn't matter if it were, mind, because I still wouldn't accept "he was running at me" as a really good reason to shoot a guy to death.
If he weren't a cop, he could straight-up be tried and found guilty of crimes based on existing evidence. Situations where you have some people saying one thing, other people saying another, is actually what trials are ideally for.
The first part of that statement is true, the second is not. Again, the rules for what constitutes murder or manslaughter in Missouri are different for cops than from civilians. An on-duty policeman, specifically, must be shown to have premeditated intent to murder. This is not true of civilians, who can reasonably be expected to face potential legal consequences for causing unnecessary deaths through reckless action, proof of planning or no. This is why the grand jury, despite all the vast amount of incentive, could not find that the case was worth bringing to trial, and why no special prosecutor was appointed to see it done anyway. Missouri state law was not designed in such a way that anything could really be pressed against the cop in this scenario.
A) Because killing people with one's bare hands is an incredibly rare occurrence, to the point where claiming it to have been a realistic expectation is effectively bullshit, even for big people with or without a history of violent behavior;
B) No;
C) Really doesn't matter.
A) Yes, correct, Brown was not "successful," in that he did not do that.
B) If it's not uncommon for that to happen to cops, then cops should either get better training for that sort of situation, or not wear their guns in the first place. After all, having them taken and used against them is "not uncommon." The legal responsibility for a person being assaulted never falls on the victim, nor should it. As far as responsibility goes, people should generally not initiate confrontation against other people if they aren't prepared to deal with any resulting conflict with same, and if it's their job to do just that then they'd better make sure that they're trained pretty damn well. (Or just not carry equipment that they're not prepared to be responsible for).
C) Yes and no. Yes, that's probably not part of the training. No, the officer involved most definitely does bear some responsibility for putting himself/herself into a situation that he/she was not properly trained for. Especially if said officer had specifically opted out of alternative, (generally) nonlethal equipment.
Since exactly how Mike Brown ""surrendered"" is exactly the point of contention among witnesses, that's a bullshit statement to make, because we can't say even approximately how "threatening" it was at all. We just know that the threat level is heavily disputed, with the shooter claiming the highest level. Granted, this is America we're talking about, and people with more pale skin may have found the ""surrender"" to have been more threatening than others.
Having been involved in physical altercations with people of the late Mike Brown's size and age, however, I can go on to say that lethal force is generally not the most appropriate and/or necessary response, let alone the only one, against aggression from unarmed individuals. And that most people do not, and should not, get away with having effectively any kind of prolonged interaction with unarmed men before shooting them dead in public.
Probably.
Last edited:
The whole story was that Brown hit him, held him in his car, went for his gun, and then instead of surrendering, aggressively moved toward him. And yes, showing blatant felonious aggression toward someone and then running toward them while a lethal weapon is in play can cause the average rational person to feel their life is threatened. Not many states would try to argue otherwise. It would have been incredibly idiotic for Wilson to actually allow Brown to catch up to him and allow even the slightest chance of being overpowered.
Again, eye witness accounts by themselves are not sufficient evidence, particularly in locally and media sensationalized cases and definitely when they contradict physical evidence. No eye witness accounts are really reliable in this case. The physical evidence supports Darren Wilson's account. No known evidence suggests he was lying or mistaken in his account in any significant way. As things are, that could change. If it had gone to trial, it'd be set in stone that he's innocent.
So, since murder is by it's legal definition always premeditated, and manslaughter not, you are basically saying that a cop can never be charged with manslaughter in Missouri. I hadn't heard about this. Mind linking a source?
Killing with your bare hands isn't easy, but it's possible. The threat wasn't Brown's hands alone however. Brown's hands would only have been needed to overpower Wilson. This could have led to a severe, possibly fatal beating, his gun being taken and used on himself, or any other possibility that unnecessarily violated Wilson's personal health and safety. They already struggled over the gun once, why should Wilson have allowed Brown another chance at it?
The best option for cops not getting shot by their own gun is actually probably concealing it. The training is probably basically "If someone goes for your gun, try to put distance between yourself and them. If they still try, use the force required to make them stop while keeping a distance." I can't see how any other training can be anything but dangerous in this matter. No intelligent cop, or any person for that matter, would attempt to engage in a fight one on one with an unknown aggressor, particularly when it puts a firearm in that aggressor's reach. And are you actually saying a person should be legally responsible for being shot by their own firearm by someone that forcefully took it from them?
We know Mike Brown had his hand on Wilson's gun at least once. Evidence suggests he hit Wilson in the face at least once. We know the shots all hit him while he was facing Wilson. We know that he was moving toward Wilson while this was happening. Do you really feel the best course of action for Wilson to have taken in that moment was to refrain from firing and allow Brown a chance to get up close? That's the training you'd give?
Again, eye witness accounts by themselves are not sufficient evidence, particularly in locally and media sensationalized cases and definitely when they contradict physical evidence. No eye witness accounts are really reliable in this case. The physical evidence supports Darren Wilson's account. No known evidence suggests he was lying or mistaken in his account in any significant way. As things are, that could change. If it had gone to trial, it'd be set in stone that he's innocent.
So, since murder is by it's legal definition always premeditated, and manslaughter not, you are basically saying that a cop can never be charged with manslaughter in Missouri. I hadn't heard about this. Mind linking a source?
Killing with your bare hands isn't easy, but it's possible. The threat wasn't Brown's hands alone however. Brown's hands would only have been needed to overpower Wilson. This could have led to a severe, possibly fatal beating, his gun being taken and used on himself, or any other possibility that unnecessarily violated Wilson's personal health and safety. They already struggled over the gun once, why should Wilson have allowed Brown another chance at it?
The best option for cops not getting shot by their own gun is actually probably concealing it. The training is probably basically "If someone goes for your gun, try to put distance between yourself and them. If they still try, use the force required to make them stop while keeping a distance." I can't see how any other training can be anything but dangerous in this matter. No intelligent cop, or any person for that matter, would attempt to engage in a fight one on one with an unknown aggressor, particularly when it puts a firearm in that aggressor's reach. And are you actually saying a person should be legally responsible for being shot by their own firearm by someone that forcefully took it from them?
We know Mike Brown had his hand on Wilson's gun at least once. Evidence suggests he hit Wilson in the face at least once. We know the shots all hit him while he was facing Wilson. We know that he was moving toward Wilson while this was happening. Do you really feel the best course of action for Wilson to have taken in that moment was to refrain from firing and allow Brown a chance to get up close? That's the training you'd give?
Last edited:
That's incredibly bullshit when the defender is the one that put a lethal weapon in play. It means: "I can use whatever kind of force I want to use to resolve a conflict, provided I have ready access to it when I need to, since I could otherwise lose control of it at any time."
Eyewitness accounts by themselves are regularly considered sufficient evidence to bring a case to trial, after which further investigation is usually carried out and - where most people are concerned - the possibility of conviction becomes reality.
Sure. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/current-law-gives-police-wide-latitude-to-use-deadly-force/2014/08/28/768090c4-2d64-11e4-994d-202962a9150c_story.html
http://archive.news-leader.com/graphics/ShuckPC.pdf
That's what Google at first glance gets me, mind you, whereas I originally got this from a Georgia attorney. (While I appreciate that a Georgia attorney is not necessarily a foremost expert on Missouri law, I do still expect this one's statement's to be more reliable than several minutes online. This could be mistaken, but I wouldn't expect as much.)
Is your point that Wilson should have locked the gun away once he realized it was actually presenting a threat to him? Cause in that case, good point. He shouldn't have been holding the gun. If he hadn't been, most likely nobody would have died or even been seriously injured. It was reckless of him to have been carrying it while being so easily frightened a person.
Well... yeah, I am. Making use of equipment that a person is not competent in properly controlling, when said equipment is capable of killing people when improperly used, is something that is widely accepted under "should be illegal." Which is why we don't let people drive without a licence, or while high on PCP. Also why we shouldn't let untrained cowards carry guns - they end up getting scared and shooting people. The law does not protect people who crash their cars into buildings while driving without a license, even though they may be the only people hurt in that instance and regardless of how incredibly large and/or black the buildings possibly are. The law should not protect people who use firearms to kill unarmed individuals. There's being a pussy, then there's being a pussy while being paid government money to not be a pussy, and then there's being paid government money while being so much of a pussy that people literally end up dead because of how much of a pussy you're being. At least two of those, in my opinion, fail to meet acceptable standards for (il)legality.
The training I'd give would have involved Wilson being able to deal with Brown without a weapon, if necessary, and using less dangerous alternatives like pepper spray, a taser, or even rubber bullets if he really, really had to. Wilson deliberately opted out of carrying any of said alternatives, and then went on to prove himself to be carrying a deadly weapon that he was not competent to use, and now a guy is dead that would probably not be otherwise. (Thankfully, just the one this time - panicked gunshots flying around in public generally endangers innocent bystanders as well.)
Last edited:
Yup. The responsibility falls on the initiator and aggressor. Wilson was neither.
Not when those eye witness reports are all inconsistent and contradict physical evidence.
"The first of the Supreme Court rulings that still govern law enforcement policies nationwide on the use of deadly force is Tennessee v. Garner. In the 1985 case, the court concluded that police officers could not shoot at a fleeing suspect simply to prevent their escape. They could shoot, however, if they had probable cause to believe the person was a violent felon and posed a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community."
This fits in with the story physical evidence paints. Brown committed felonious assault and then moved toward Wilson at undetermined speed instead of surrendering. The other law doesn't need to come into play, Wilson would have gotten a not guilty with just this.
That other ruling is pretty bullshit though.
The gun wasn't posing the threat. The gun helped defend him from the threat.
What you seem to be arguing would be more analogous to someone being charged with vehicular negligence for being hit by their own car. And the building one only works if somehow the building was the one moving toward the car, which is an absurd concept. Darren Wilson operated his firearm successfully when he was freely allowed to do so, only harming his aggressor.
The one defending themselves should have no obligation to allow their attacker the opportunity to overpower and possibly kill them. Wilson reasonably believed he could have suffered catastrophic injuries or have been killed if he were to be overpowered. That would have been true regardless of the gun. Fists, boots, batons, rocks, curbs, 300 pound stomps. Any of it can do significant damage if not outright kill.
Last edited:
Disagreed. "Bare hands" is generally not considered to be "use of lethal force," unless it's a cop that's been attacked. Then you get apologists arguing that making fists is actually an initiation of lethal force, rather than drawing a gun.
Yes, even when some of them are inconsistent with others, and none of them contradict physical evidence here.
That would come down to whether it was found that there was "probable cause" to believe that Brown, (again), being a large but completely unarmed person with no history of violent crime, posed "a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community," which should be pretty tough to sell. Even given that, it's again an example of laws being skewed to give leeway to police for abuse of power, because by no account including Wilson's would Brown's actions be treated as felonious if Wilson were not a cop. Just petty theft, being under the influence of marijuana, and simple assault and battery.
At the moment that Wilson began fearing that the gun could be taken from him and used to kill or seriously injure him, he acknowledged that the gun was posing him a more serious threat than Brown's empty hands were.
And harming his aggressor extremely disproportionately to the amount of threat his aggressor should have been considered to pose, thus resulting in the unnecessary death of an unarmed teenager - classic case of what happens when a handgun is improperly or irresponsibly used - and demonstrating that Wilson was not sufficiently competent to be entrusted with that sort of power.
All of those being technically possible, but unreasonable to expect. The legal distinction between simple and felony assault is that either serious permanent injury was caused, or a weapon was used. This is so because where ordinary citizens are concerned, people attacking other people without a weapon are not considered to have a reasonable expectation of causing serious, lasting injury without some other proof of intent to do so, which is why they just get charged with a misdemeanor. Wilson could have called for backup and hidden inside his car if he felt scared of Brown, since "cop potentially letting a cigar thief get away temporarily" is, or should be, generally less frowned-upon than "cop shooting a cigar thief to death." Unfortunately, Missouri state law is so structured that people like Wilson's fear of getting beat up by large black people, or being laughed at for hiding from them, is not effectively counterbalanced by a fear of repercussions for outright shooting them - in which case, given that you're not especially concerned about whether you end up killing more big black guys than you really have to, it makes sense that you'd bring a gun to all your (minor, misdemeanor) arrests, and refuse to even carry a taser.