Michael Brown Shooting

Darren Wilson Denied Shooting at a Fleeing Suspect Yet Offered a Justification for Doing So

|

ABC News

In my column last week, I noted that the Missouri statute governing the use of force by police clashes with restrictions imposed by the U.S. Supreme Court. That issue came up during the deliberations of the grand jury that rejected criminal charges against Darren Wilson, and it may have shaped his testimony.

Missouri's law allows police to use lethal force if they reasonably believe it is "immediately necessary" to effect the arrest of someone who has "committed or attempted to commit a felony." That's a remarkably broad license to kill—broad enough to justify, say, shooting at a suspected pot dealer who otherwise might get away. In the 1985 case Tennessee v. Garner, by contrast, the Supreme Court said shooting at a fleeing suspect is permitted only when he "poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others."

Assistant St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Kathi Alizadeh pointed out this conflict to the grand jury. "What we have discovered," she said on November 21, "is that the statute in the State of Missouri does not comply with the case law." Alizadeh told the grand jurors they should therefore disregard the statute and judge Wilson's shooting of Brown according to what the Supreme Court has said the Fourth Amendment requires.

The Court's ruling in Garner also seems to have been on Wilson's mind when he testified before the grand jury on September 16:

One thing you guys haven't asked that has been asked of me in other interviews is, was he a threat, was Michael Brown a threat when he was running away. People asked why would you chase him if he was running away now. 

I had already called for assistance. If someone arrives and sees him running, another officer and goes around the back half of the apartment complexes and tries to stop him, what would stop him from doing what he just did to me to him or worse, knowing he has already done it to one cop. And that was, he still posed a threat, not only to me, to anybody else that confronted him.

Although Brown was unarmed, he had, by Wilson's account, just launched an unprovoked assault on a police officer, hitting him in the face twice through the window of his patrol car. Wilson said he feared Brown might hurt someone else he encountered as he was fleeing. That explanation, which Wilson volunteered to the grand jury without being asked, closely tracks Garner's requirement that a fleeing suspect pose "a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others," before the use of lethal force can be justified.

That's a bit puzzling on the face of it, because Wilson repeatedly denied using lethal force against a fleeing suspect. He said he fired at Brown in the street only after Brown turned and charged, at which point he was acting in self-defense. But according to PBS NewsHour's tally, a dozen eyewitnesses said Wilson fired at Brown while he was running away. One of those witnesses changed his mind on that point in a subsequent interview, and three others agreed that Wilson did not fire until Brown turned to face him. Wilson's testimony about the threat Brown posed to "anybody else that confronted him" may have been aimed at assuaging the concerns of jurors who believed the first set of witnesses.

NEXT: Steven Greenhut on Challenging California's Absurd Ban on Signs in Gun Store Windows

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Anyone surprised at this stuff anymore?

  2. he had, by Wilson’s account, just launched an unprovoked assault on a police officer

    I deem this to be utter bullshit. It may have been ill advised, but I find it laughably improbable that it was “unprovoked”.

    1. “New light shed on witness testimony in Michael Brown shooting”

      http://fox2now.com/2014/11/25/…..-shooting/

    2. ” but I find it laughably improbable that it was “unprovoked”.”

      So the police officer “provoked” a violent criminal? Where do you lunatics come from? Violent criminals don’t have a “right” to success in their criminality.

      1. Simple answer: if a civilian had done what Wilson did, he would have been arrested on the spot and heading for a murder trial.

        Cops are civilians too. Some people forget that.

        1. No, the civilian would likely have failed to react to the assault in such a way to keep themselves from being seriously injured or killed.

        2. Simple answer: if a civilian had done what Wilson did, he would have been arrested on the spot and heading for a murder trial.

          Victim of attempted car jacking shoots and kills attacker after the attacker charges at him.

          Some jurisdiction would try that person for murder. But none should do so.

        3. Here’s my question, though. Should they be? Are you going to tell me that you would support a case like that? You would be in favor of a guy who shot someone who was attacking him going to jail for murder?

          If so, well, congratulations. You’ve just negated the right of self-defense.

  3. He ordered the fleeing suspect to stop and come back. When the suspect stopped and turned back toward him, he killed him. Good shoot.

    1. Yeah. In the top of the head. In front of witnesses.

      What do you people get out of spreading these lies? A violent criminal died. That’s a good thing unless you’re the sort of animal who sides with violent criminals.

      1. Saves the cost of a trial don’t it?

      2. There are violent criminals and there are violent criminals. Pretending they’re all the same, all equally dangerous, is lazy and often cowardly.

  4. Okay, Sullum’s claim here is absurd.

    Sullum says the following:

    Darren Wilson Denied Shooting at a Fleeing Suspect Yet Offered a Justification for Doing So

    No he did not offer justification for shooting at a fleeing suspect. Here is what Wilson said:

    One thing you guys haven’t asked that has been asked of me in other interviews is, was he a threat, was Michael Brown a threat when he was running away. People asked why would you chase him if he was running away now.

    I had already called for assistance. If someone arrives and sees him running, another officer and goes around the back half of the apartment complexes and tries to stop him, what would stop him from doing what he just did to me to him or worse, knowing he has already done it to one cop. And that was, he still posed a threat, not only to me, to anybody else that confronted him.

    You’ll notice that his justification was for chasing Michael Brown after Brown allegedly assaulted Wilson. He did not offer justification for shooting at Brown while he was fleeing and to say otherwise is a lie.

    Jesus Christ. I personally don’t know what happened and find the utter certain with which both the Brown and Wilson sides speak to be ridiculous given that no one knows exactly what occurred. However, the willingness for people to lie about what Wilson said or did is inexcusable and is dreadfully dishonest.

    1. In all seriousness, does Jacob Sullem not know that the words ‘chase’ and ‘shoot’ mean different things?

      Claiming that someone offered justification for shooting at someone when he actually offered justification for giving chase is proof of either illiteracy or mendacity.

      1. In all seriousness, does Irish really think Wilson would think he needed to justify chasing Brown? There’s no explanation reasonable except he was offering justification for the shooting, not the chase.

        1. In all seriousness, does Irish really think Wilson would think he needed to justify chasing Brown? There’s no explanation reasonable except he was offering justification for the shooting, not the chase.

          Yes, because multiple people were asking him why he gave chase. From his answer, if you’d care to fucking read it:

          One thing you guys haven’t asked that has been asked of me in other interviews is, was he a threat, was Michael Brown a threat when he was running away. People asked why would you chase him if he was running away now.

          He flat out said that people had asked him, which is why he was answering. When someone says ‘hey, people have asked why I chased him. This is why,’ I question how someone can be dumb enough to seriously believe he’s justifying a shooting, rather than simply answering a question he had been frequently presented with.

          I like the way people have consistently interpreted innocuous statements from Wilson in a way which has nothing to do with what he actually said.

          1. Ah, I see, you think you are always quoting in context and nobody else is.

            1. And you apparently think a straight forward statement is a secret dog whistle which can only be heard by you and Jacob Sullum. If you hear someone say ‘I have been asked why I chased someone and this is why’ and conclude that they really mean ‘I tried to shoot him in the back’ then you might be suffering from some sort of brain injury.

              1. Plain language means nothing, Irish. It’s all about the squishy, unsaid lurking behind the words that matter. Why did you chase him? Meaning, why did you shoot him? Actually, those two questions ARE NOT the same. This article is complete bollocks.

          2. Simple answer: if a civilian had done what Wilson did, he would have been arrested on the spot and heading for a murder trial.

            The Cosmos have allied themselves to race baiters and marxist on this case and are sacrificing honesty to push the narrative.

            Too bad they’re to stupid to realize that the only thing they are accomplishing is destroying their reputation and setting back the cause of police reform.

            I’m sure that they’re new allies are all broken up about that too.

        2. Your reasoning is worthy of witch hunts: when people try to defend themselves against ludicrous accusations, you take their defense as a sign of guilt.

        3. Scarecrow I’ve seen quite a few people arguing that by giving chase a cop is “escalating” the situation. Their argument is that he should have stayed in his car once Brown took of running. That is precisely the argument Wilson is countering.

          1. This. One thing that a lot of people ask is whether Wilson should have avoided this situation. One of the ways that people offer is that he could have stayed in his car and waited for backup.

            Of course, Wilson’s justification *would* have also allowed him to shoot, so I suppose Sullum is asking why, if Wilson thought he was chasing a dangerous fleeing felon, he *didn’t* choose to shoot Brown in the back. (I imagine police are allowed not to shoot, especially if a guy is running on a public street).

  5. So was Brown shot in the back or in the front? Or does it really matter at this point.

    1. He was shot in the front. All the testimony about him being shot in the back has been discredited by the autopsies.

    2. In case anyone cares

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..e-officer/

    3. Does it matter?

      Someone posted a quote yesterday from a protester who said that even though the evidence contradicted the claim that Brown had his hands up, it was ok to claim he did because it agreed with his narrative.

      No, it doesn’t matter, and if that doesn’t matter why not just claim Wilson chose Brown randomly and shot him with no warning and for no reason at all other than his own amusement?

      1. why not just claim Wilson chose Brown randomly and shot him with no warning and for no reason at all other than his own amusement?

        As absurd as that sounds, I’ve seen plenty of discussion board comments (not HnR) that basically claim exactly that.

        1. lord knows I read that dozens of times about Zimmerman.

  6. When everything a person says is a lie, in what way are we supposed to determine the truth?

    Of course he shot Brown while he was running away. Of course he shot Brown as he was bull rushing him. Of course he feared for his safety. Of course he feared for the safety of other officers.

    All of it is true all at the same time. Nothing can possibly be contradictory because he is a police officer, and therefore infallible.

    1. I don’t see how the statements you listed contradict each other. Care to explain?

    2. Yes well, even if you totally discount the pigs’ testimony, the forensic evidence and testimony of eyewitnesses confirms his version.

  7. Apparently, if you are a police officer, you should not pursue someone who has just attacked you?

    We should spread the word around about this policy. If you are ever arrested, just punch the cop. He will then let you go uncontested, and you will have plenty of time to get away and hide before his backup arrives.

    There’s a lot of arguments on both sides of this story, but the weakest one is that he “shouldn’t have pursued him.” I think people are conflating this story with the Trayvon one.

    1. The weakest argument? Maybe, but there are many contenders. One I saw online, shortly after the incident: there was no robbery, Brown and Johnson paid for the cigars, and that little physical incident with the clerk was just good-natured joshing around.

      Another contender: Ezra Klein’s argument that Wilson’s story is “unbelievable” because Klein can’t believe an 18-year-old ghetto kid from a sketchy family would do things so stupid, violent, and irrational. Because everyone knows the inner cities are so completely filled with bright, peaceful and rational teenagers.

    2. The oft-used Grand Theft Auto defense. If you can hide from the police for the right amount of time the police will never look for you again.

  8. Umm, the official autopsy showed no bullets entering Brown’s back.
    Perhaps the bullets ricocheted off of street lamp posts and entered the front? And perhaps Brown’s blood inside the patrol car was placed there by Tea Partiers?

    For those whose minds are made up, we here excuses as lame as those used against George Zimmerman — GZ had kept bashing his own head into the pavement, and broke his own nose by punching himself in the face. Reality bites.

    The key moment was whether Brown was running away or charging. BROWN knew he had just robbed a store, then a cop stops. Is it reasonable to wonder if Brown thought he was defending against an arrest? But the pack journalists, of course, wondered only if Wilson knew of the robbery.

    1. And perhaps Brown’s blood inside the patrol car was placed there by Tea Partiers?

      Nah. It was placed there by Mark Fuhrman.

  9. I personally think the crux of the issue is whether or not Wilson shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or not.

    Clearly there was an altercation in the cruiser but did Brown, unarmed, really think it wise to turn around and charge at an armed police officer?

    1. So have you seen the movie Rashomon?

    2. “Wise” and Michael Brown do not belong in the same sentence.

      Is it wise to rob a store and threaten the owner while being videoed ?

      Is it wise to stick your head in a police car and punch the offficer and get shot in the hand while “supposedly” fighting over the gun ?

      Why should we expect Brown to suddenly become wise enough to start making “wise” decisions ?

    3. I personally think the crux of the issue is whether or not Wilson shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or not.

      And I think the crux of the issue is why is a grand jury deciding that instead of a jury.

      I thought a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich? Just not the swine itself, I guess.

      No way in fuck this wouldn’t be going to trial if it’d been you or me instead of piggly wiggly.

      1. Except that under normal circumstances this might not have gone to an indictment at all, so this argument is pretty ridiculous.

        If a ham sandwich should be indicted, why not you? Why not a grand jury for everything that has been alleged ever to have happened, and we’ll sort it out at trial?

        1. Because there were enough eyewitnesses claiming wrongdoing to send it to trial. Except he’s a cop and gets special treatment.

          1. FdA

            I definitely saw you fucking my sheep, and I have three other witnesses who will state the same… Wanna go to trial?

            Better spend $10K on a lawyer.

      2. And if it were you, and if Wilson’s account is correct, would you call that justice? Some guy attacks you. You shoot him to defend yourself. And the state puts you on trial for murder? That is something you’d support and consider right?

      3. If it had been you or me instead of piggly wiggly we wouldn’t even know it had happened. There would have been no roits, and, had it somehow became news, all the people on this site siding with Brown would be siding with Wilson.

    4. I personally think the crux of the issue is whether or not Wilson shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or not.

      No, the crux of the issue is whether Wilson reasonably perceived Brown as a threat to himself or others. Attempting to surrender is not automatically sufficient to dispel that perception.

    5. I agree with this. I think it’s very possible that Brown would have behaved so irrationally. But if it had gone to trial, this is the central question I’d want an answer to.

  10. So, we are going to debate the details of the Brown shooting endlessly while a militarized and unaccountable occupying army runs rampant. That is comforting.

    1. You don’t understand. It’s really, really important that one side “wins”.

      1. It seems though that one side starts out with a 2 touch down lead in police shooting cases.This could not have been handled worse

      2. It certainly is important that people keep fighting about it so that the cops have time to attend asset forfeiture seminars.

      3. In order to fix the problem, we have to identify what the problem is in the first place. If you think that the problem with police is that it is “a militarized and unaccountable occupying army running rampant”, you are confused and won’t be able to improve things.

        1. Yes, let us pretend that the police are completely accountable and do not treat us like insurgents in a civil war. They certainly have our best interests at heart.

          That would be an awesome starting point, right?

  11. This sort of reminds me of the joke I’ve used to characterize the japanese attitude re: charges of War Crimes regarding the cold-blooded murder of huge numbers of civilians in Nanking –

    “First off: It Never Happened; Secondly – They Completely Deserved It.”

    No, that’s not a quote or anything, but I’ve seen similar arguments made where people would hedge their ‘steadfast, categorical denials’ with the caveat that even if it did happen, well: the bastards probably had it coming.

    That said = in the specific case of this cop and whether it was actually a ‘good shoot’, or just a clusterfuck that has no real clear good-guy; you can’t begrudge the guy for taking the ‘spaghetti-against-the-wall’ approach to his own defense = he will present a POV that – no matter what ‘version of reality’ the grand jury or public decides to run with, he’s going to take the stance that in *any possible interpretation* he has an case for his own innocence. i.e. – that Brown was ‘a threat’ whether or not he was coming or going.

    1. Not to pick in your comment particularly, but it seems to me that the point of no return, the mistake that went south, was Wilson’s attitude towards Brown and his buddy when he first saw them and backed up his patrol SUV. Without recordings, there’s no way to tell what really went down, but I have had cop encounters of my own where their attitude gets my dander up. Whether a traffic stop or just a causal encounter, or the time an idiot neighbor heard my Mauser bolt action shooting and told 911 I was firing a machine gun, their attitude is always so over-the-top insufferably superior and patronizing, I have no doubt the same attitude or worse was on display at that encounter. Whether Wilson was personally worse than average, or the dept encouraged a worse than average attitude, does not really matter. Once Wilson acted like a jerk, things were inevitably going downhill.

      1. “the point of no return, the mistake that went south, was Wilson’s attitude towards Brown…”

        Fascinating.

        Do you also think Darth Vader’s problems can all be traced back to his mom-issues?

        1. You got something on your chin, there, Gilmore.

      2. I tend to believe Johnson’s testimony that he told them to get the fuck out of the road. That, in combination with what I imagine Brown’s mental state to have been in the aftermath of the robbery, would have been enough to doom the encounter. But Brown’s behavior in wrestling with Wilson through the window, I’d say, was the true point of no return.

      3. Once Wilson acted like a jerk, things were inevitably going downhill.

        So a cop, or anyone else, acting like a dick is justification for assault and a car jacking?

    2. Did you see how some of those little Chinese girls were dressed in their cute little Mao outfits ?

      Huba Huba.

      They were clearly asking for it.

  12. Here’s a question for you. If Michael Brown was as steeped in the Thug Culture! as has been claimed, why would he even give a shit about getting busted for shoplifting, much less freak out and attack a cop?

    1. Better yet, why would a bunch of Uncle Toms lie to a grand jury and say exactly the same thing Wilson said?

      The stupidity some bring to these discussions is depressing.

      1. exactly

        Kinda doubt it. Really truly kinda doubt it.

        I bet your mom told you a million times to stop exaggerating.

    2. Did you just ask that if he was a thug, why would he attack a cop?

    3. I think it’s interesting that the issue of Brown’s overall mental health hasn’t been explored more in all of this. The conversation about Jesus he’s alleged to have had with a construction worker who stubbed his toe around 11 am that morning, if it happened, is mighty curious. He was about the right age for onset of bi-polar symptoms.

      1. Actually about the right age for the first onset of schizophrenia symptoms. Adult bipolar tends to be initially seen more in the 20s, where schizophrenia typically first strikes between 18 and 21. However, any conversation involving delusions would be more consistent with schizophrenia anyway.

        If he had been having schizophrenia symptoms, Brown could have over-interpreted Wilson’s initial involvement in a very paranoid way, making him feel he was in great danger — which would be one explanation as to why he attacked the cop.

      2. Epecially in light of his friends tesimony that his aggressive behavoir was very uncharacteristic. Not exactly reliable testimony but who knows. Walking towards someone shooting at you if that is what happened would certainly make you wonder.

  13. So the police officer “provoked” a violent criminal?

    “NOBLE” police officer.

    You forgot noble. Also kind, thrifty, courteous, trustworthy, brave and honest.

    1. I didn’t forget anything, hero. Is one supposed to be ashamed of siding with police over violent criminals? Is your insanity really that complete?

      1. That is a real nice false dichotomy you have there ccoffer. Good work.

      2. Please clear up the confusion you have spawned. You’ve described the police twice, once by a semi-official term (“police”) and once more correctly (“violent criminals”). Your sentence, she no make sense. Can you please clarify?

        Or do you define insanity by expecting intelligible sentences?

      3. You will note that during that other Prohibition people did exactly that. There was a shift in attitude.

        You would have thought that police had learned their lesson and be against Prohibition laws.

        1. Prohibition is full employment for cops, but immunity is what makes it all so special.

        2. Is that true? Or did the glamorization of the Mafia and bootleggers start in the 30s once the actual ‘threat’ was over?

          1. I think the attitude change towards ‘revenuers’ was part of the motivation for the glamorization of the criminal element. The law and order types went beyond the pale then too causing people to see the bootleggers as not so bad.

            I vaguely recall the case of a fisherman on Lake Superior being shot dead for motoring around at night. The cops got off and it caused a national outrage. There were lots of cases like that.

            Also, after having contact with the cops people realized right away that the cops were violent, corrupt thugs and most of the bootleggers they knew were uncles and neighbors.

            I am a bit drunk so that is the best I can do.

      4. Hi, ‘Murkin.

    2. ‘Hero’. Noble Hero.

      Geez.

      *I am joking. I actually think this whole mess is misdirection; outrage over the wrong incident. I think the Brown shooting was justified, as opposed to the zillions that are not and don’t get this kind of attention.

      1. yep, pretty much.

        Sadly, the narrative here seems to be so race-focused, that the issue of militarized policing and excessive use of force will get tossed aside = it will be TEAM PRO-COP vs TEAM SCREAM-RACISM and anyone who dares present a third POV will get slaughtered by both for failing to adhere to the popular narrative.

        I mean, you can’t point out that police shoot dogs, police shoot old ladies, police burn children with flash-bangs, police beat unarmed mentally ill people to death, etc…. without someone thinking your point is an attempt to ‘ignore the race-element’. RACE UBER ALLES

        1. There are plenty of valid cases where the victims are black as well. But hey lets all focus on the one in a thousand cases of police misbehavior where the cops story is backed up by the evidence and the punk bully “victim” is on video being a punk bully 10 minutes earlier. I have to wonder if the police unions hand picked this as the story of the year about police abuses.

        2. ^^^This^^^

          Which is especially disheartening because the narrative that police abuse is only a ‘minority’ problem, with a thug like Brown as the emblem for it; leads the majority of people to think that it is only a problem that criminals have and is exaggerated anyway.

      2. I agree,the shooting of the boy in Cleveland for one.Although,I’m to the point that I think anything a cop says is a lie and I will be right most of the time

  14. “My mother? Lemme tell you about my mother….”

  15. OT =

    Democrat Governor of Massachusetts =
    The Unbearable Inevitability of Hilary May Make ‘Regular People’ Sick of Her

    Also = don’t forget she’s a white person

    “Patrick said Sunday that voters view “inevitability as entitlement.”

    Also = don’t forget to try and perpetuate the president’s horribly-shitty metaphors

    “”The President said [last week] that the next president needs a new car smell, and it’s pretty hard for me to say ? that she [Clinton] has a new car smell,” he acknowledged.”

    What Democrats seem to be saying – because they don’t speak the actual ‘english language’ like regular people – is that they might want to start prepping some Understudy to get ready.

    Warren? or a dude? I’m guessing team blue thinks a dude.

    1. Apparently this talking point was distributed over the weekend

      Former Clinton pollster =

      She’s Lost That Loving Feeling = Also, Smells Like A 1973 Pinto

      1. “…A 1973 Pinto”

        I laughed. A lot.

        Then I clicked on your link and read it. I nearly puked.

        Fuckin’ Romney? Clinton? Warren?

        I wouldn’t let any of those people pick up the dog shit in my back yard.

        Goddammit.

  16. Irish, in his many comments above, is a voice of wisdom.

    Again, I’d recommend The Conservative Treehouse for anyone interested in some in-depth and original research on this issue. A current question: Where is Dorian Johnson right now? In FBI custody? A friend of his, and possibly one of the grand jury witnesses, was murdered and his body set on fire. Johnson seemed freaked and disappeared.

    I’m still hoping we’ll see Mike Brown’s juvenile records released. Or maybe some of his other victims will come forward. They must exist: anyone who attacks a shop clerk and policeman like that is not a stranger to physical assault and intimidation. But the “Snitches Get Stitches” code probably prevents that from coming out any time soon.

    1. You mean the way cops don’t snitch on each other? I also remind you police officers have a very high rate of domestic violence .Brown made his own bed,but,police in this country have major issues,many caused by the drug war.

  17. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start… This is where to start…

    ?????? http://www.payinsider.com

  18. This is why we must roll with the punches.

    http://www.Anon-Rocks.tk

  19. What the fuck is with all the Ferguson coverage?

    Does NOBODY else realize that LOU REED DIED?

    You all have some fucked up priorities, man.

    * lights incense on kitchen table Lou Reed shrine *

    1. Wait – Lou Reed is DEAD? Why didn’t anyone tell me about this?

      And what do the Millenials think?

  20. Get a load of what our good pal Mark Ames has to say about libertarians & Ferguson:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBKNQJ8_RE4

    ding a ling ling! RETARD ALERT!

    1. That’s a good link to save just in case you ingested poison and need to induce vomiting.

  21. Do we have relatively clear evidence of whether Wilson fired at Brown while Brown was fleeing?

    If I understand correctly:

    – We know how many shots Wilson fired.
    – I think there’s no dispute that Wilson fired two while he was in the car, while Wilson either manhandling Brown through the window or Brown was attacking Wilson through the window.
    – Were all of the remaining shots captured by the cell phone audio?

    – Granting that I could be wrong on any of the above, can we tell whether Wilson fired while Brown was fleeing (and presumably missed) or whether he only fired while Brown was facing him and/or approaching him?

  22. Alizadeh told the grand jurors they should therefore disregard the statute and judge Wilson’s shooting of Brown according to what the Supreme Court has said the Fourth Amendment requires.

    Since when does the Fourth Amendment require that cops who effect unlawful seizures (which is what the Supremes in Garner said the use of deadly force against a fleeing felon was, with limited exceptions as detailed in the Court’s opinion) be prosecuted criminally?

  23. I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.
    For information check this site. ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  24. The chart publish by PBS is only 46% accurate at representing the witness statements. I read all of them and compiled a corrected chart.
    http://imgur.com/eNdviOl

    8 Said his hands were up in surrender.
    6 Said they were up at shoulder height in a posture similar to running.
    2 Said he did not raise his hands.

    So that’s 8 for not surrendering, 8 for surrendering.
    The majority of the statements claiming a posture of surrender include very specific details in that section of their narrative that are not supported by evidence. 3 of the 8 later admit to perjury in their
    supporting testimony.
    You’re left with

    8 Not surrendering
    3 for Surrendering, but in situations not supported by evidence
    2 for Surrendering and give very non-descriptive or conflicting
    statements that are hard to evaluate as being reported with confidence
    about what they saw.

    The evidence at the crime scene DOES NOT SUPPORT any of the statements or testimony that make specific claims about seeing Wilson firing at Brown while he was running away from Wilson.

  25. The PBS chart is wrong. Witness 16 says Brown was running away early in the interview, but later in the same interviews, admits he did not see the shooting and is only reporting what others have said. Yet PBS reports W16 as saying Brown was running away. 16 was not the only witness who later admits not actually seeing the shooting. Others report clearly fallacious facts, such as there being two officers (who both got out of the car) or that Wilson was shot repeated in the back while lying on the ground (contradicted by forensics). PBS give these obviously fabricated reports the same weight as all the others. Read the reports and think for yourself or your credibility will sink to that of PBS and a lot of the other media.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.