Michael Brown Shooting

[WISD0MTREE]

What relevance does this have to the reasonableness of Wilson's use of lethal force? Is resisting arrest a capital crime now? Have we dispensed with the legal system and appointed our local police officers judge, jury, and executioner? If so, why doesn't he have a cool helmet like Judge Dredd?

No, but he could be getting buddies, "big bad assault rifles", etc. 

[Fox Fire]

That is... entirely inaccurate. Where in the world are you getting your information?

From officer Wilsons friends via CNN interview 2 days after it happened. It's perfectly accurate and even goes hand in hand with the story you yourself are telling.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Fox Fire

[Alataq]

I feel like they should have at least charged him

[Vincent]

Actually the grand jury did the wrong decision, it is not their call to decide whether Wilson is guilty or innocent. They just need to indict him. Let the trial decide whether he is innocent or guilty .

[Dietrich]

From officer Wilsons friends via CNN interview 2 days after it happened. It's perfectly accurate and even goes hand in hand with the story you yourself are telling.

 

I don't know what Wilson's friends said on CNN - I don't watch much television - but according to Wilson's own testimony, he was aware that a robbery had occurred but was not actively involved in that particular situation, as other officers had already been dispatched to handle it. It was only after he had stopped Brown and his friend for jaywalking that he became aware of the possibility that they were the same people involved in the robbery, which, again, he had no intention of getting involved in, since other officers were already doing so.

 

I tend to believe that Wilson knows what happened better than any of his friends would have, unless you believe that he was lying about who was assigned to handle the robbery, but I imagine that there would be numerous police officers (including those actually assigned) who would testify if they believed that Wilson was lying about that. He has no reason to lie about it anyway, though; if anything, being assigned to handle the robbery would help justify his determined pursuit of Brown.

[Fox Fire]

It was only after he had stopped Brown and his friend for jaywalking that he became aware of the possibility that they were the same people involved in the robbery, which, again, he had no intention of getting involved in, since other officers were already doing so.

Then why did he? Because he was about to drive off until he realized they were the suspects, then attempted to stop them

Point is: he stopped them because they matched the description of strong armed robbery suspects, not because they were walking in the road. Cops dont try to manhandle you for walking in the road.

[Dietrich]

Then why did he? Because he was about to drive off until he realized they were the suspects, then attempted to stop them

Point is: he stopped them because they matched the description of strong armed robbery suspects, not because they were walking in the road. Cops dont try to manhandle you for walking in the road.

 

No, Wilson stopped Brown and his friend because they were jaywalking; he realized that they matched the description of the suspects after stopping them, and then he attempted to delay them for thirty seconds or so in order to allow other police officers time to arrive on the scene and apprehend them. It's during that attempt to delay them that Wilson was assaulted by Brown, pursued him, and ultimately killed him.

 

Anyway, I would also like to point out that Wilson never attempted to "manhandle" Brown for any reason; Brown assaulted him, and he attempted to first defend himself, and then, when he determined that there were no other viable options remaining to defend himself, to shoot Brown.

 

The importance of this, anyhow, is that Wilson could not have been reasonably sure that Brown was unarmed at any time. He had not listened closely to his radio when the robbery was announced, and knew only a few details. Besides that, nobody had any way of knowing that Brown was unarmed except Brown himself, because someone who is armed is not necessarily going to be obvious about that fact unless they need to be.

 

Everybody knows now that Brown was unarmed, but at the time of the shooting, the only person who could be absolutely sure that Brown was unarmed was Brown.

 

Regardless of whether or not he was armed, however, there's no doubt that Brown could have done some real damage to Wilson even unarmed. Whether or not that was Brown's intention is up for debate; Wilson believes that it was, and his testimony reflects that, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that's the truth. Unfortunately, this is where the facts fail us; we don't know exactly what happened during the final few seconds of Brown's life, because there is limited physical evidence and various conflicting testimonies. It all comes down to whether you believe that Brown was surrendering, or charging at Wilson with the intention to hurt him. I don't know what to believe, but I'm not ready to condemn Wilson on the grounds of pure speculation.

[Fox Fire]

I like how you rely so much on the one persons word who has words to speak.

[Fox Fire]

I mean, an armed person doesnt commit a strong armed robbery or try to steal another persons gun..... Every detail screamed unarmed. He was also shot from several feet away 6-8 times and once in the head, so.....

[Pwnius Scrubius]

Wilson shot 12 times from a .40 caliber which seems way too overkill. Seriously, he said he wanted to arrest him but shoots him 12 times.

Now it's to decide weather it was on purpose or a psyhcological reason (he got scared and couldn't stop shooting).

I question at least training of police in that area.

[Fox Fire]

Wilson shot 12 times from a .40 caliber which seems way too overkill. Seriously, he said he wanted to arrest him but shoots him 12 times.

Now it's to decide weather it was on purpose or a psyhcological reason (he got scared and couldn't stop shooting).

I question at least training of police in that area.

I question the quality of police there. Obviously there is a major disconnect between the community and the police.

[Dietrich]

I like how you rely so much on the one persons word who has words to speak.

 

1) Michael Brown had absolutely no idea what radio broadcasts Darren Wilson was receiving or paying attention to, and thus his testimony, lost to us now, is irrelevant in this regard.

 

2) The available witnesses generally corroborate the majority of Wilson's testimony with the exception of whether or not Brown's behavior was aggressive; however, many of the facts of the fight in Wilson's police car are in fact also corroborated by physical evidence (Brown's DNA in the car, Wilson's facial injuries, etc.), and are thus much more difficult to contest.

 

I mean, an armed person doesnt commit a strong armed robbery or try to steal another persons gun..... Every detail screamed unarmed. He was also shot from several feet away 6-8 times and once in the head, so.....

 

3) You keep using the term "strong-armed robbery", but I don't recall that term coming up anywhere else. Brown and his friend committed a robbery. Whether or not they were armed could not have been known at the time because it is possible that an armed individual might keep their weapon(s) concealed. This is actually not incredibly uncommon among robbers, precisely because armed robbery is treated more seriously in legal terms than unarmed robbery.

 

4) There's any number of reasons that a criminal might attempt to steal a police officer's firearm despite being armed themselves, including that the criminal may have thought that he could overpower the police officer and thus remove himself from harm's way. I don't know about you, but if I am given a choice between "me with a gun versus you with a gun" and "me with two guns versus you with no guns", I will always pick the latter.

 

5) Every detail did not scream unarmed. If Brown placed one hand at his waistband, that could signal that he is armed. If Brown was willing to turn and attack an armed police officer rather than fleeing or surrendering, that could suggest that he is armed (or a total !@#$).

 

6) As I believe Mutant pointed out, police officers are trained to shoot to kill, not to shoot to wound. It isn't particularly surprising that, if Brown was charging him down from a short distance away, Wilson would have thought it necessary to fire multiple shots in order to ensure that he hit his target and protected himself.

 

I am not saying that Wilson's account is completely or even mostly accurate. I believe that it is relatively accurate, but I can very easily see why many would disagree, since there are numerous conflicting testimonies (but, notably, no conflicting physical evidence that I am aware of at this point in time, except that Wilson underestimated the number of his fired shots that hit Brown). However, I think the assertion that Wilson - acting quickly, under great stress, and, according to his testimony, in great danger - should have been able to bring to mind all of the facts and make a careful decision about whether or not he believed Brown to be armed before firing is ridiculous. Even if Wilson was reasonably sure that Brown was unarmed, Brown was at least as tall as Wilson (I've heard claims of both 6'4" and 6'5") and significantly larger (290 pounds), making him dangerous whether he was armed or not (which, again, Wilson may not have been able to be sure of at the time).

 

The one thing that I'm certain of here is that nobody with the possible exceptions of Wilson (who might be lying to save himself or might be remembering the incident differently than it actually occurred) and Brown (who is dead) can say for sure what actually happened, least of all you, me, or anyone else in this thread. We can do nothing but speculate. If you believe that you know exactly what Wilson was going through at the time, exactly what information he had, and exactly how he interpreted that information, then either you're daft or you're lying to yourself.

 

This is why a full trial would have been so valuable.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Dietrich

[Hereno]

>This is why a full trial would have been so valuable.

 

so we're all in agreement then

[Morgan]

>This is why a full trial would have been so valuable.

 

so we're all in agreement then

 

Even if the grand jury decided to take Wilson to trial, would there have been a different outcome? 

[Dietrich]

Even if the grand jury decided to take Wilson to trial, would there have been a different outcome?

I personally believe that he would have been judged not guilty, but I would prefer to see an official decision on the matter, and I think that a trial would help to cause a more accurate story to emerge based on the best facts available.

[Grillick]

I don't think a trial would have affected the outcome, but that belief is based more on my lack of faith in the state prosecutor to do his best to get a conviction than on my opinion of the actual facts of the event.

[Morgan]

I personally believe that he would have been judged not guilty, but I would prefer to see an official decision on the matter, and I think that a trial would help to cause a more accurate story to emerge based on the best facts available.

The grand jury decision was an official decision. I believe it was sufficient enough. If they had reasonable doubt that Officer Wilson didn't follow correct procedure then they should have allowed a trial. 

Edited December 2, 2014 by Morgan

[Grillick]

The grand jury decision was an official decision. I believe it was sufficient enough. If they had reasonable doubt that Officer Wilson did follow correct procedure then they should have allowed a trial.

That isn't a grand jury's job. Reasonable doubt has nothing to do with it. Exonerating evidence should never be presented to a grand jury.

[Morgan]

That isn't a grand jury's job. Reasonable doubt has nothing to do with it. Exonerating evidence should never be presented to a grand jury.

I mean reasonable doubt as in physical evidence that contradicts his story. 

[Grillick]

I mean reasonable doubt as in physical evidence that contradicts his story.

none of which should ever be presented to a grand jury. If a prosecutor doesn't think that a case is worth charging the LEO, the prosecutor should exercise discretion and discontinue the case, public opinion be damned. Making a mockery of the grand jury system to create the illusion of justice is deplorable from anyone, but especially from an officer of the court who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.

[Hereno]

Even if the grand jury decided to take Wilson to trial, would there have been a different outcome?

that there would be a trial means that the outcome would be different by default

[SoS]

Even if the grand jury decided to take Wilson to trial, would there have been a different outcome?

No. You must have video of a gang of cops beating the shit out of a !@#$ to even get an indictment.

 

Has there ever been a white cop convicted of killing/excessive force on a black man?

[Grillick]

At least once.

[Morgan]

that there would be a trial means that the outcome would be different by default

If he was found not guilty, then not really. The Grand Jury didn't have evidence to prove he did anything other than do his job. So that there pretty much says he's guilty. 

[Hereno]

If he was found not guilty, then not really. The Grand Jury didn't have evidence to prove he did anything other than do his job. So that there pretty much says he's guilty.

this post doesn't even make sense