Michael Brown Case

[Patroklos]

Sure you can, the forensic evidence and witness statements are the same regardless as to who was presented here. The chief complaint about the prosecutor is that he wasn't biased enough in how he presented the evidence. Probably because it were any other case he would have dropped this stinker from the beginning as its a loser case. Alas we put an innocent man through the wringer for a couple months to appease a small minority of the public which predictably isn't enough for them.

[Borgholio]

Thing is, you can't even trust the evidence that was presented due to the massive bias here. This should have been handled by an independent prosecutor.

The Feds are doing their own independent investigation just to be on the safe side. So we'll know eventually if there is a problem.

[Patroklos]

That one is limited to a very specific set or charges though, primarily was Brown targeted because he was black. Given every witness corroborates Brown was walking down the middle of the road illegally and now we know Wilson received the robbery report and identified Brown as matching the suspect there is really no reason to think they could possibly charge him of that.

[Borgholio]

Yeah it's not likely the Feds will find anything to charge Wilson with, but they will at least be able to point out any inconsistencies or errors made by the local investigators.

[Elheru Aran]

Is there any practical way, should the case be revisited, for Wilson's guilt or whatever to be otherwise re-evaluated? Or does this fall under the whole double-jeopardy thing?

[Patroklos]

I think (could be wrong) double jeopardy does not apply since there was no trial with a verdict. However, unless a subsequent attempt at prosecution can point to some crazy new piece or really damning evidence the fact that he survived this grand jury attempt with flying colors is going blow any other prosecution attempt out of the water.

[Borgholio]

Double jeopardy does not apply to a Grand Jury because there was no actual trial. Another Grand Jury could take up the case if new evidence came to light, but it would have to be damming evidence for that to happen.

[Terralthra]

That one is limited to a very specific set or charges though, primarily was Brown targeted because he was black. Given every witness corroborates Brown was walking down the middle of the road illegally and now we know Wilson received the robbery report and identified Brown as matching the suspect there is really no reason to think they could possibly charge him of that.

No. What we know is that, a month later, trying to justify shooting and killing someone, Wilson said that he knew about the purported robbery and identified Brown as a suspect. Since there was no incident report taken the day of the shooting, there is little evidence that Brown's narrative is anything beyond a self-serving pile of half-truths at best. The questioning of his story done at the grand jury itself was so soft that Wilson himself, at the end of his testimony, pointed out that no one actually asked him how Brown was a threat when he was running away.

If there'd been effective prosecutorial work done at the grand jury, or even basic police work done the day of the shooting, there could've been effective cross-examination done for the GJ, if no one else, and compare the statements made to the GJ to the incident report. But, no incident report, no effective cross. The whole grand jury process was an obvious whitewash, convened and directed by someone who has literally never charged a police officer in an officer-involved shooting.

[Thanas]

Sure you can, the forensic evidence and witness statements are the same regardless as to who was presented here. The chief complaint about the prosecutor is that he wasn't biased enough in how he presented the evidence. Probably because it were any other case he would have dropped this stinker from the beginning as its a loser case. Alas we put an innocent man through the wringer for a couple months to appease a small minority of the public which predictably isn't enough for them.

Yeah right. They couldn't have made this look anymore skeevy if they actually tried to sweep everything under the rug.

[Simon_Jester]

Was Brown shot in the front or the back? My impression is that he was shot in the front.

While there are many ways an innocent man can be shot from in front, few of them involve running away.

[Lost Soal]

All he has to do is stop and turn around after wilson starts shooting, then you have everything. Shot at while running and misses, turn around and try to surrender, as some witnesses say he was doing, wilson fires again and hits this time.

[Me2005]

My impression is that he was shot in the front.

I thought that's what the autopsies said.

Part of the issue here may be that apparently in the state of Mississippi, police officers are legally permitted to use deadly force (with some conditions) when making an arrest. In that case the officer might have been justified (under state law) in gunning Brown down even if it was from behind - he was trying to escape arrest. Not to imply that is what happened or that it would be "right" if it were, but even if one were to believe that it is what happened, that's the law (as I understand it - I am not a laywer etc.etc.).

[Simon_Jester]

Missouri, surely?

Also, if he was shot from in front, again, he wasn't fleeing. For all I know it could be a cold-blooded shooting of a man with his hands in the air at a range of ten paces- it's just that he wasn't running away.

[Elheru Aran]

My impression is that he was shot in the front.

I thought that's what the autopsies said.

Part of the issue here may be that apparently in the state of Mississippi, police officers are legally permitted to use deadly force (with some conditions) when making an arrest. In that case the officer might have been justified (under state law) in gunning Brown down even if it was from behind - he was trying to escape arrest. Not to imply that is what happened or that it would be "right" if it were, but even if one were to believe that it is what happened, that's the law (as I understand it - I am not a laywer etc.etc.).

They're in Missouri IIRC, not Mississippi.

As I understand it, there are two versions being posited-- (bare minimum scenarios because I don't have the time to go into detail) the first is the police's case (that Brown attacked Wilson and was shot in the process), the second is that Brown ran away from Wilson after a scuffle at the car, Wilson drew on him, he turned and surrendered and then was shot anyway. With minor variations, those are the two stories.

[Me2005]

My impression is that he was shot in the front.

I thought that's what the autopsies said.

Part of the issue here may be that apparently in the state of Mississippi Missouri, police officers are legally permitted to use deadly force (with some conditions) when making an arrest. In that case the officer might have been justified (under state law) in gunning Brown down even if it was from behind - he was trying to escape arrest. Not to imply that is what happened or that it would be "right" if it were, but even if one were to believe that it is what happened, that's the law (as I understand it - I am not a laywer etc.etc.).

They're in Missouri IIRC, not Mississippi.

Curse states with very similar names and my dyslexia! Fixed in the quote.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Sure you can, the forensic evidence and witness statements are the same regardless as to who was presented here. The chief complaint about the prosecutor is that he wasn't biased enough in how he presented the evidence. Probably because it were any other case he would have dropped this stinker from the beginning as its a loser case. Alas we put an innocent man through the wringer for a couple months to appease a small minority of the public which predictably isn't enough for them.

Yeah right. They couldn't have made this look anymore skeevy if they actually tried to sweep everything under the rug.

Okay. I take it you've reviewed the evidence and have come to this conclusion based off this evidence?

[Thanas]

And I take it you think the proseccutor's history is just fine and dandy?

I am not commenting on the merits of this case. I think the way they handled this is beyond shady, the persons involved are even shadier and the prosecutor couldn't have come across more unlikable if he had actually tried to do so in the press conference.


EDIT: Reading through Wilsons testimony now and this is basically a shit job by the prosecutor. They are softballing him all the way, letting him tell his story without asking any questions and don't try to hit him with any inconsistencies. They never wanted an indictment.

[Dark Hellion]

Regardless of the skeeviness of the prosecutor, there are many major forensic findings (which are available for review by following the link provided previously) that seem to contradict the narrative of Michael Brown being gunned down simply for being black. The various blood and firearms findings paint a very different picture. I find it odd how many people here have talked in the past about the unreliability of testimony and look to forensics as a savior only now to reverse this general trend when the forensics do not match the result that they want. That is not to say I agree with the proceedings entirely. The softballing of P.O. Wilson is unacceptable given how strongly the case actually seems to rest on forensics. Had the prosecutor been more strenuous and this went to trial only for P.O. Wilson to be found not guilty because of the forensics we would still be seeing much the same reaction but there would not be the stink of partiality that now hangs over the proceedings.

This is not to say that I do not think that there are serious problems both in the Ferguson police themselves, the Missouri criminal justice system and the general systems of law and order in American society as a whole. In a lot of ways I think that this is an even bigger flashpoint because it had all the markings of everything wrong with the police in America and it turned out that the truth is far greyer than people wanted. It is nice to imagine that the police are mustache twirling bad guys like a bad blaxploitation villain. But the reality is that the root causes have more to do with a society that is largely becoming more and more divided by a number of different factors such as race, education, wealth, and political affiliation and this division has become violent.

I will say I have a lot of sympathy for the peaceful protestors. The fact that this case may not be the mindless hate crime that people thought it was does not mean that the narrative that has been presented by the protestors is not one that happens far, far too often in the U.S. I think people should be out in the streets in major metro areas and make it so regardless of the Grand Jury those in power have to take notice and attempt to do something more than the mealy mouthed palliatives that are being offered.

[Grumman]

EDIT: Reading through Wilsons testimony now and this is basically a shit job by the prosecutor.

Ya think? The only reason this made it to the grand jury is because Michael Brown was black and because arsonists, looters and Sharpton saw an opportunity to make life a little bit shittier for everyone else. If Michael Brown was white, do you know what the reaction would be to a man committing a strong-arm robbery (proven by video evidence) and getting shot for trying to steal a cop's gun (supported by the physical evidence he was shot in the hand reaching into the front seat of a police car)? "Good riddance." The only evidence that this is anything more than a violent moron discovering the limits of his ability to brute force his way out of trouble with the law is testimony - that some people interviewed claimed without evidence that he was shot in the back, that he was executed while kneeling, that his hands were up in a gesture of surrender.

[Beowulf]

The prosecutor did a shit job, because this is a shit case. Their job is to get justice, not convictions.

[Napoleon the Clown]

If they'd decided to indict, that wouldn't have been a guilty verdict. That would be a "You're having your day in court."

And what then? We should convict him to keep the peace, sacrifice a man as revenge for centuries of wrong-doing by other people?

Did I say that?

From even a PR perspective, what would be better? Refusing to even have a trial? Or having a trial (even one that turns into a media circus) and being able to point to it and say "A dozen of his own peers concluded that Darren Wilson acted within reason by killing Michael Brown."

A dozen of his peers on the grand jury just did that. Where do you think grand jurors come from? They're selected from the same pool as regular juries.

Were there lawyers there to ask questions that could give indications on if Mike Brown was in the act of surrendering, or trying to renew an attack on Darren Wilson?

If the case for Darren Wilson is that goddamn strong then why not go to trial and show it?

While I understand the thrust of your argument, an acquittal at trial would have had the same result on the street. It's quite obvious that there is a segment of people with no intrest in justice, what they want is revenge or an excuse to riot. It's unfortunate because I believe the vast majority of people in Ferguson, or anywhere else, don't want that and certainly don't want the violence and the burning of neighborhoods.

Shitty people do shitty things regardless. It's not unreasonable for people to look at a case like this with a lot of suspicion. See the parts mentioned between your reply and my current reply on how there wasn't an incident report filed. That does not look good at all.

By refusing to even have a day in court it makes it look like they're hiding something.

Then why immediately unseal the records? Which they did, last night.

I haven't had an opportunity to look them over myself but the information is out there, why don't you take a look?

People aren't gonna accept that answer. They see yet another black guy getting killed and the killer not going to trial. PR doesn't always rely on rational responses.

Maybe Mike Brown was charging Darren Wilson after having fled because trying to steal Wilson's gun turned out to be a mighty fine way to get shot, and then he decided "Fuck this pig, I'll show him!" I don't know, and I don't have any sources of information I trust to be sufficiently reliable to credit them for anything. Nonetheless, when they respond the way they have it gives the exact wrong impression to everyone.

I don't get where you're going with that. Yes, stealing a cop's gun IS a mighty fine way to get shot. What do you mean by “fuck this pig, I'll show him!” - that it was somehow OK to assault a police officer? Are you saying an officer shooting someone trying to beat him up and take is gun isn't legitimate self-defense?

Bad phrasing on my part. What I meant was, after the attempt to take Wilson's firearm and fleeing upon being shot, did Brown turn around to charge and attack Wilson? Or did he turn to surrender?

Whether or not you believe Mike Brown "deserved" to get shot, keep in mind the history between blacks and law enforcement in the US. There is a very, very strong perception that cops are the enemy because, well, just look at the statistics. Blacks are targeted for traffic stops, searches, and pretty much everything else at a far greater rate than whites. And it really doesn't help the case of the cops when the sheer number of searches come up empty-handed. There's a lot of reason for blacks to feel like cops suspect them to be guilty of wrong-doing just because they're, well, black.

Are you saying that justifies insisting on a guilty verdict even before a trial? Are you saying that justifies a riot?

Yes, I'm entirely aware of the history between cops and blacks in this country. It is not, however, as bad as it used to be (I remember a time when black cops, or any cop being anything other than a white male, was virtually unknown). We still have a long way to go to perfection, but using the crimes of a generation or two ago to justify throwing someone to the wolves is just as wrong as letting the guilty go without penalty.

A riot? Hell no. Protesting? Well, people have that right, now don't they?

And the race situation in this country still isn't completely equal. Trayvon Martin is still fresh on people's minds, any many firmly believe that Zimmerman's actions at least constituted escalating the situation. That Zimmerman walked free signaled, to them, that the jury didn't think Martin's life mattered. The actual events aren't what matter when it comes to how people react, it's their perception of things.

Did you even fucking read what "they" said was cause to riot? Hint: It's the utter lack of a trial even having a chance at happening. There's not gonna be a trial at all. People kind of get pissed when, by all appearances, justice isn't even getting paid lip service.

First of all – a grand jury IS part of the process.
Second – there is no bar to a civil trial. Just as in the OJ Simpson case where many perceived the verdict to be a miscarriage of justice and the families of the victims brought a civil case against him, the Brown still have the option to sue Wilson in civil court.
Third – the Feds aren't done with their investigation. If the Feds find prosecutable wrong-doing there will be a Federal trial.

This affair is not done yet.

Did I say I agreed? I was stating why someone could have a problem with the decision.

If Darren Wilson had been anything other than a cop he'd have gone to court over this instead of being given total anonymity until he could cross state lines and hide from what he did. Justified shooting or not, it's really fucking suspicious when you flee from the state before anyone can even put you on trial.

It's not so surprising when you are getting death threats, though – or should he have stayed put and become a target for vigilantes?

On top of that, I have personal knowledge of people who have killed other people without winding up in court, said people were not cops, and not all of them were white.

And, not related to this case, but those of us who live next to a “state line” often enough cross them by accident, or may need to do so for employment. Crossing a state line isn't always a suspicious act.

Would shooting someone that is at least 35 feet away and unarmed be a case where no trial takes place still? In a situation where there's some disagreement on if the person was charging or surrendering? That's one of the factors here.

Killing someone and immediately leaving state without taking care of any of the legal aspects looks pretty damn bad. The people you've known that killed in self-defense still had to talk to the police and tell them what happened. Darren Wilson didn't file a report, despite that being a crime, to my understanding. If you kill someone and don't give details to the police (that means your higher-ups, if you're an LEO) it makes things look pretty damn fishy.

That he isn't going to be charged with anything, that he will never have to set foot in a court room, is why people are so pissed off.

See above about Federal investigation and possible civil proceedings.

And if there's a federal trial and the truth gets paraded about showing Wilson fired the killing shot after Brown began to charge him there will be a few people who at least have that closure. Keep in mind that Brown wasn't fatally shot until after he had fled some distance. Why he turned around is a big factor in if the killing shots were justified.

If a black guy had shot a white kid, even if the situation were identical except for one being a cop and the other not being a cop, then there'd be a fucking trial.

I know a couple of local instances where a black person shot a white person and never spent a night in jail or went to trial – then again, when said white person is someone who literally kicked in a front door and attempted to assault/rob the people inside and found to his sorrow the little teeny black woman owned a shotgun there's not a lot of room for interpretation, is there? Of course, you don't hear about those stories in the news, at most they're on the police blotter on page 3 of the local paper.

And there are plenty of instances of white people shooting black people and going to trial but, again, it usually doesn't get the air play of this case.

Yet these individuals still had to talk to the police and a report had to be filed, correct? They didn't shoot the armed intruder, throw his body in the street, and leave it there without contacting the police? They most certainly did not shoot the intruder while he was over thirty feet away and unarmed, and there was most certainly nobody trying to claim the intruder was in the act of surrendering. Michael Brown was over thirty feet away, and there are claims he was surrendering and not renewing an attack he had broken off after getting shot. That last bit is the important bit. He began to flee, and then turned around. The sticking point is that there's some disagreement on if he was charging or holding his hands up to surrender.

[Thanas]

The prosecutor did a shit job, because this is a shit case. Their job is to get justice, not convictions.

No, they did a shit job in Wilson's testimony. The whole thing reads more like an advertisement for one side of the story instead of a search for the truth, which apparently is what this was supposed to be.

[Broomstick]

See the parts mentioned between your reply and my current reply on how there wasn't an incident report filed. That does not look good at all.

No, it doesn't, it clearly was a violation, and regardless of anything else Wilson should have some sort of punishment for that lapse.

Then why immediately unseal the records? Which they did, last night.

I haven't had an opportunity to look them over myself but the information is out there, why don't you take a look?

People aren't gonna accept that answer. They see yet another black guy getting killed and the killer not going to trial. PR doesn't always rely on rational responses.

True, we've gone far beyond the rational for many yet releasing the information does serve some purpose. Some of us do want to get as close to the truth as we can.

Bad phrasing on my part. What I meant was, after the attempt to take Wilson's firearm and fleeing upon being shot, did Brown turn around to charge and attack Wilson? Or did he turn to surrender?

A good question, and hard to answer.

Forensics can help - it can determine if he was shot in the back or the front, the angle at which the bullets impacted could indicate if he was standing or kneeling, but it won't be a definitive answer if he was upright and facing Wilson.

A riot? Hell no. Protesting? Well, people have that right, now don't they?

Absolutely people have a right to protest, to march in the streets, and I believe up to a certain point even obstruct traffic and disrupt city hall (protesters staged a sit-in at Chicago city hall yesterday). Hurting others and destroying property is where I draw the line.

The news media reports that last night in Ferguson the peaceful protesters were pointing out the "troublemakers" overturning cars and throwing Molotov cocktails at the police. Protests always have the problem that they attract a certain type of joker that just wants to see the world burn. And they often are out of towners - yesterday 9 people were arrested that had traveled from Chicago to Ferguson solely to join the protests and, apparently, cause trouble.

And the race situation in this country still isn't completely equal.

No, it certainly is not.

I think it's important we remember the progress and gains we have made, remember what has worked for positive change, but it is just as essential to keep pushing against prejudice of all sorts.

Trayvon Martin is still fresh on people's minds, any many firmly believe that Zimmerman's actions at least constituted escalating the situation. That Zimmerman walked free signaled, to them, that the jury didn't think Martin's life mattered. The actual events aren't what matter when it comes to how people react, it's their perception of things.

Well, actually, I'm in the camp of people who think Zimmerman either escalated or instigated that incident. That's another one that should have gone to trial.

Killing someone and immediately leaving state without taking care of any of the legal aspects looks pretty damn bad. The people you've known that killed in self-defense still had to talk to the police and tell them what happened. Darren Wilson didn't file a report, despite that being a crime, to my understanding. If you kill someone and don't give details to the police (that means your higher-ups, if you're an LEO) it makes things look pretty damn fishy.

As I said, I haven't read all the facts of the case and was unaware Wilson had neglected the incident report. Yes, if you kill someone you have to talk to the police. Even if you don't kill someone if you inflict violence you still have to talk to the police. That was the case the time my spouse used the crossbow on a would-be truck thief, and when he hit a would-be intruder with a shovel this summer. The right to self-defense also carries a responsibility to account for your actions and deal with consequences.

I know a couple of local instances where a black person shot a white person and never spent a night in jail or went to trial – then again, when said white person is someone who literally kicked in a front door and attempted to assault/rob the people inside and found to his sorrow the little teeny black woman owned a shotgun there's not a lot of room for interpretation, is there? Of course, you don't hear about those stories in the news, at most they're on the police blotter on page 3 of the local paper.

And there are plenty of instances of white people shooting black people and going to trial but, again, it usually doesn't get the air play of this case.

Yet these individuals still had to talk to the police and a report had to be filed, correct?

Yes, absolutely.

They didn't shoot the armed intruder, throw his body in the street, and leave it there without contacting the police?

That actually has happened in Gary but no, it's not considered legal or OK. There's also throwing the body over a fence, into a dumpster, and last year an attempted cremation in a backyard BBQ pit. Of course, all of that is very illegal.

[Borgholio]

Protests always have the problem that they attract a certain type of joker that just wants to see the world burn.

Bunch of yahoos here in LA were trying to break down a fence so they could march onto the highway and shut it down. Dumbasses.

[Patroklos]

Killing someone and immediately leaving state without taking care of any of the legal aspects looks pretty damn bad. The people you've known that killed in self-defense still had to talk to the police and tell them what happened. Darren Wilson didn't file a report, despite that being a crime, to my understanding. If you kill someone and don't give details to the police (that means your higher-ups, if you're an LEO) it makes things look pretty damn fishy.

Perhaps crossing internal province borders or whatever they are called where you are from is a meaningful thing but here in the US it is of absolutely no consequence. Many of our metro areas straddle state boundaries (NYC for instance). Its a trivial thing to arrest someone in another state, it is no issue at all as far as interviewing or investigating a case.

And while the normal incident report was not filled out Wilson did not just ignore law enforcement post incident or visa versa. He was immediately brought to the hospital for inspection for instance and all sorts of other statements from Wilson from the day of the event soon after were made. His incident report should have been filled out, but you are characterizing it as if he went on the lamb and was a fugitive from the law until he happened to show up at the Grand Jury. Not the case.

Also Wilson did call for backup BEFORE all of this went down, which apparently arrived seconds after the shooting.