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.
Darren,
Are there any allegations whatsoever that Brown was struggling for the shooter’s gun when he was killed? My understanding is that even the hearsay upon hearsay allegations supporting Wilson’s claim that a struggle occurred claim that the struggle occurred prior to the majority of shots (all but one) and that Brown’s body was over thirty feet away from Wilson’s squad car.
Even if such a struggle happened, it seems clearly to have been a non-issue by the time Wilson fired a bullet in Brown’s head.
Mespo, please provide the names of these 4 witnesses you speak of.
fiver – given what Zimmermann went through if I were the cop I would be hiding out, too. Zimmermann is still getting death threats. Discretion is the better part of valor.
You are assuming that the officer never left the car, but shot from there. The autopsy report said the shots are from no further than 20 feet. So it appears, from the report and position of the body that Off. Wilson pursued Brown after being assaulted by him. At some point Brown had his head down facing the officer when he was shot in the top of the head (bull rush/bums rush).
The woman who videoed the end of the incident with her cell phone has Wilson standing by the body and pacing back and forth, seemingly in mental anguish about having killed Brown.
Enjoy your vacation. I think it’s timely.
I stand corrected. Same question: Would it be improbable to conclude this shooting was in self-defense?
You guys can hash the rest out, I’m off to vacation.
Brown was 6’4″. He was unarmed. His body lay 33-35′ from Wilson’s vehicle. A bullet had entered the top of his skull. That bullet was probably the one killed him. If we were “spearing” he sure didn’t get very far. In fact, he apparently didn’t even get out of his three point stance.
But that’s just going on the indisputable facts (height, autopsy, body position) coupled with the story told by the shooter’s girlfriend’s Facebook friend on a conservative talk radio broadcast.
What kind of “hero” hides his identity for as long as possible then tries to justify the killing through his girlfriend’s Facebook friend?
John:
Reasonable doubt is for the trial; probable cause is for charging the cop.
Jack:
Three of the four eye witnesses don’t know the cop or the dead teenager. That makes them the most credible witnesses around. Get you own teaspoon full of reality.
Whatever happened to reasonable doubt? Would it be unreasonable to conclude this shooting was in self-defense? Based on all the available evidence, that is even more probable than a cop without any negative history would climb out of his car, somehow fracture his orbital bone and shoot an unarmed, non-violent man because he was jaywalking.
Darren, I doubt Mespo will see, let alone acknowledge, just how naive he is.
He obviously won’t acknowledge the difference between a witness and a credible witness. I bet he even believes that a police officer would try toull a giy into the front seat, let alone attempt to do s by grabbing a guy the size of Brown by the neck.
He needs a dose of reality.
Yeah, Paul but you wouldn’t get the benefit of it. Just me. That’s selfish.
Darren:
No one is saying cops can’t get killed by bad guys, but Society had more to fear from an out of control cop than an out of control crook. The crook doesn’t have the seal of power on him. The cop does.
mespo – a run around the block would be much better for your system and can be soul cleansing.
My wise mom would often say, “Better out than in” when one of her 4 kids would rant. But, there were parameters.
mespo – what the refs catch and what happens are two different things. As well all know, they are open to blowing calls. And I think Mr. Brown did he playing (if he did) either in jr. high or high school, where it is even more wide open. As you go down the league tables, the refs get worse (as does the pay).
Darren w/ the knockout!!
I like a good rant. It’s liberating for the soul.
Fiver:
Too much money for too little production. They aren’t Duh Bears for nothing. Hey I hear he’s getting better at his new position — DE.
mespo, WTF has happened to you? Are you auditioning to play Howard Beale in a Richmond theatre production of Network? You’re better than these over the top rants.