While like many I was shocked by the story of the shooting of an unarmed man, Michael Brown, by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, I have refrained from making public comments due to the conflicting accounts that have arisen in the case. As a criminal defense attorney, I have long resisted the tendency to rush to judgment, particularly in the midst of public unrest, in such cases. I saw that as a problem in the Trayvon Martin case. Those same concerns were raised this morning with the statement of Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon who publicly stated that “a vigorous prosecution must now be pursued.” Presumably, he is speaking of the arrest and prosecution of Officer Darren Wilson. However, the investigations into the case are continuing and, in my view, Nixon’s comments are wildly inappropriate at this stage.
Nixon previously referred to Brown as the “victim” and denounced the release of this video of Brown strong-arming a store owner in stealing some cigars shortly before the shooting:
The video was released by police who were accused of trying to portray Brown as a violent thug — a similar concern that was raised in the aftermath of the Martin shooting. Police insisted that it is part of the record of the case since this was the crime that preceded the confrontation with Wilson. Of course, even if Brown stole the merchandise and threatened the store owner, it still does not justify the use of lethal force on an unarmed individual. Moreover, I am appalled that Brown’s body was left on the street for hours.
However, the facts in this case remain in considerable conflict. Rivaling accounts support both Brown and Wilson. The early objective evidence is also in conflict. While Brown’s friend said that Brown was shot in the back, the autopsies do not appear to support that (though the family insists that one of the arm wounds could have come from behind). Moreover, a recording and some witness accounts after the shooting seemed to support the claim of Wilson. Others support Brown. In other words, the facts are in dispute. Under some circumstances, the shooting of an unarmed individual can be found to be justified under standards governing officers.
There is also the recent report that Wilson suffered facial injuries or an “orbital blowout fracture to the eye socket” from the encounter. Such an injury, if true, could boost a defense.
The case could be submitted to a grand jury as early as today. We should learn more from the tests and forensics in the days to come. However, as a criminal defense attorney, I am deeply concerned about the Governor’s statements. Any prosecution would already be hindered by venue and bias issues. It is the duty of a governor to reinforce the rule of law and avoid pre-judging cases before any investigation is completed. Others certainly have the right to be heard on their views of the facts, even as they continue to emerge. However, Nixon is the chief executive of this state and does a disservice to legal process in prejudging the facts in my view. Such comments from either a President (who in the case of Obama has been much more restrained and circumspect) or a governor can seriously undermine the foundation for a fair trial and create the appearance of political pressure on prosecutors, judges, and others.
Nixon stated that “We have a responsibility to come together, and do everything we can to achieve justice for [Brown’s] family . . . to achieve justice in the shooting death of Michael Brown must be carried out thoroughly, promptly, and correctly.” The “correct” way of achieving justice is not to presume guilt as the facts are still being investigated in my view.
“Another gem from Karen: “We need to learn from these riots how best to break them up and contain them.””
Anon2,
I’m curious to know exactly why you have an issue with that statement? Are you suggesting we don’t need to learn from these riots and we don’t need to know how best to break them up and contain them?
John – riots are an interesting phenomenon because they include mob psychology. The mob causes people to do things they would not do in ordinary life. Since you cannot predict them, I do not think there is a way you can control them, unless you have a large police force or access to a large force.
In the ’70s and ’80s the Japanese college students used to riot almost on a weekly basis. The riots happened so frequently that they actually had unofficial rules for rioting. If the students did nothing hostile, the police would do nothing hostile. If the students got pushy, the police pushed back, etc.
Yeah, “wait for an investigation before you form a lynch mob or come to any conclusions” is really outrageous and irresponsible.
Seriously.
anon2:
“Karen: “Well, the Left “just knows” what happened. They could even be called as expert witnesses.”
That’s the impression that you give, as well, Karen. Smug comes to mind, too.
Another gem from Karen: “We need to learn from these riots how best to break them up and contain them.”
We’ll just let that one stand alone.”
Please provide a statement that I made, where I “just knew” and failed to give a source, either up front or when asked.
Do you disagree that we need to learn better how to contain riots?
Or do you criticize the police for using military force, criticize the looting, and just want nothing to change?
Nick:
You’re right. They’ll either prove the injury, or it will be disproven as simple gossip.
I have to laugh when people say they “just know” it isn’t true.
I have no idea if it’s true. We’ll just have to wait for the investigation.
No matter what, a young man’s life was cut short. He was on the wrong road, but we’ll never know now if he would have turned his act around. I feel so sad for his parents. We’ll have to find out what happened. Hopefully parents will use this opportunity to talk with their kids about these issues.
I recall my father told us as teenagers that if we ever interacted with a police officer, it should be “yes, sir, no sir.” We would have gotten in a lot of trouble with him if we were disrespectful. If the cop was doing something wrong, there is no point quarreling with him – that’s for a complaint later. You’re never going to get belligerent with a cop and have him say, “I admire your fighting skills and your ability to insult me. I’ll just leave you alone.” The most we were advised to do was to say we would wait for a parent before talking with anyone. And of course the etiquette for a traffic stop – hands on the wheel, etc.
I think Neo has posted before on some etiquette with police.
We all rightly discuss police abuses. There are training issues and even downright criminal behavior at times that needs to be dealt with very seriously.
But I wish people would remember that there also millions of interactions between police and civilians every day. They track down murderers, pedophiles, and they look for kidnapped kids. Detectives have to investigate horrific crime scenes, including those where the victims are kids, sometimes go puke, and then do their job. Many people become cops because they want justice, and to keep neighborhoods safe. Every time a cop interacts with a civilian, he or she never knows if their life will be on the line or not. I used to go on a lot of ride alongs, and I felt a real appreciation for this risk.
I cry foul when it’s deserved, but I don’t hate cops in general. For those that do, I wonder if they still call the police when they need help?
Karen: “Well, the Left “just knows” what happened. They could even be called as expert witnesses.”
That’s the impression that you give, as well, Karen. Smug comes to mind, too.
Another gem from Karen: “We need to learn from these riots how best to break them up and contain them.”
We’ll just let that one stand alone.
I’d remind our friends on the left (who for reasons that pass understanding think that they are not rushing to judgement in this case) that the plural of “rumor” isn’t “fact”
Squeeky:
Well, the Left “just knows” what happened. They could even be called as expert witnesses. 🙂
Samantha:
It is my understanding that the cops feared a riot and the city burning down, like the Watts riots. I can understand how they would feel that way when the crowd starts chanting for the death of a cop, without any evidence.
I agree with you that the sight of force is just another stimulant to a mob.
But I’m not sure what to do about it, because there were also accounts of the police ignoring 911 calls about looting. I want that investigated, too. Was it because there were too many calls? Were they afraid to do anything until they had military force? Like if a cop tried to stop looters, would he be lynched? Shop owners had to stand in front of their businesses with their shot guns and guard them by themselves. (Hoorah for the 2nd Amendment.)
If they hadn’t shown up in force, would they have burned down the city?
We need to learn from these riots how best to break them up and contain them.
Once a protest turns violent it is no longer about Free Speech.
I recall reading a while ago about a program where cops proactively made ties in the community. They went to schools frequently and gave presentations to the kids. They got to know people in the community, including pastors. They held community meetings where they heard grievances. That kind of good will in the bank would have been helpful in this situation.
Officer Wilson needs to file a civil rights suit enjoining the governor from intimidating the Grand Jury. Here is the appropriate portion of Section 1985:
§ 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
(1) Preventing officer from performing duties
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;
(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
—
See that sentence up there about influencing the grand jury?
The world is better off with the punk being dead. Ferguson, Jennings, and North County can fight over the case. Jay Nixon is like Tricky Dick Nixon and no one should vote for a Dick in ’72. The cop should sue Nixon now in federal court to stop the intimidation of the Grand Jury. He should sue for damages as well. One who conspires with another to intimidate a Grand Jury is liable under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985. Nixon conspired with his press aide. He should go on Meet The Press and explain himself. He should resign and move back to Jeff County. The Grand Jury should indict Nixon for trying to intimidate them. Nixon: Pull Out Now Like Your Father Should Have.
For those who missed it last night, that video of Chris Hayes of MSNBC getting pelted w/ rocks by protestors posted up thread is hilarious. You can almost hear him saying, “Hey man, I work for the network w/ Al Sharpton as a star. Pelt those Fox guys, not me!”
Elaine:
Here is another quote from your story:
“KFVS reported that Tinsley’s justification for posting the photos upset fellow Republicans and prompted another apology.”
As stated previously, either the cop has a broken orbital bone or he doesn’t. It is scientifically verifiable through a simple x-ray. It is not a nebulous soft tissue injury. Along w/ the usual suspects in racial issues another aspect of our dysfunctional culture comes into play here. We are a very impatient people. Being a patient person, it never ceases to amaze me.
correction …
The warrior California highway patrol officer could face charges for beating woman.
The warrior California highway patrol officer could face charges for beating woman.
@elaine
My first thought was that this was a bad shooting. After the robbery video, it was apparent there was more to the story and that he wasn ‘t no “gentle giant.” If the broken eye socket story pans out, then I will be saving my respect for more deserving persons.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Elaine – there is something very screwy about the stories the supposed ‘witnesses’ are telling and the real truth. The autopsy do not fit with their stories, but better fits with the story that Brown fought with Wilson, escaped the car and ended up shot in the head when he charged him, head down.
Let us start with the known fact that witnesses are notoriously unreliable, although the prosecution seems to depend on them.
In this case, who benefits by spreading a false meme about Brown? His friends (someone else was part of the robbery in the cornerstore)? His family? Race baiters like Sharpton and Jackson?
Squeeky,
I believe we should show some respect for a young man who is dead. He has a name. No one knows for sure everything that happened the day that Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown. I certainly don’t consider the Gateway Pundit to be a credible news source. I’m not invested in anything–unlike you and the members of the right-wing echo chamber.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter: “Why is the Left sooo invested in this being a bad shooting?”
It’s the same with the Right, Squeeky — it cuts both ways. There are just as many on the Right who seem “invested”, as you say, in finding a way to spin it as a good shooting. The truth will out, hopefully.
Mike Adams has an interesting perspective on Ferguson, suggesting the police department’s militaristic response had more to do with rioting than the actual shooting of the teenager:
Increasing police brutality and
militarization results in unrest in
Ferguson and around the country
8/21/2014
“The first thing that went wrong was when the police
showed up with K-9 units,” King said. “The dogs played
on racist imagery… it played the situation up and [the
department] wasn’t cognizant of the imagery.”
He added that, the next day, rather than work to
deescalate the situation, cops instead showed up with
armored vehicles, SWAT officers in bulletproof vests and
military assault rifles.
More…
http://m.naturalnews.com/news/046545_police_militarization_Ferguson_civil_unrest.html
@elaine
First, it was The Gentle Giant didn ‘t really rob the store after all, even though there was a video. Now, the broken orbital socket story is supposedly a Right wing lie just because. Why is the Left sooo invested in this being a bad shooting?
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Another warrior cop murder on video in broad daylight: