More evidence is emerging supporting Ferguson officer Darren Wilson’s claims in the shooting of Michael Brown. The most recent story states that Brown did not have his hands up in the air, as supporters have long claimed, when he was shot. The image of people holding her hands in the air has become the unifying symbol of case and the new evidence represents a new contradiction of the account of Brown’s friend, Dorian Johnson, who insisted that Brown was not shot in a struggle in the car and was shot with his hands in the air.
The fatal encounter between Wilson and Brown occurred shortly after Brown committed a strong arm robbery of a store owner in stealing some cigars:
However, Brown was unarmed when he was shot and Missouri Governor Jay Nixon quickly called for the prosecution of Wilson and referred to Brown as the victim and Eric Holder ordered a massive federal investigation of the shooting as a civil rights violation before the completion of the local investigation.
Much of the anger stemmed from the account of Johnson. As discussed earlier, the evidence indicates that Wilson was suffered some injuries in a struggle and that, consistent with his account, Brown was shot at close quarters, his blood was on the service weapon. The evidence also reportedly supports the claim that the gun was discarded within the car in a struggle.
Regardless of how one reads this evidence, it is another cautionary tale in rushing to judgment in such cases before the investigation is completed. The involvement of politicians and protesters in immediately demanding prosecution can have a highly distortive effect on such cases. There has been an immediate and negative response to any suggestions of evidence supporting the officer in this controversy. The fact is that this controversy — and subsequent rioting — was based on the account of Johnson and very early (and contested) stories of what occurred. As I have previously discussed, while the looting and rioting was not their fault, it was highly improper for politicians to assign guilt before the completion of even the initial investigation.
Wilson reportedly testified before the Grand Jury that he pulled over in his SUV to talk to Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson about the theft of cigarillos. He said that when tried to get out, Brown slammed the door shut and punched him in the face. He just that, when he reached for his weapon, Brown grabbed it and it was pointing for a time at Wilson in the struggling. He said that it was in this struggle that Brown was shot in the hand. He said that he then chased after Brown who allegedly turned and ran toward him. Wilson testified that he told him to stop and then fired. He said that when Wilson continued, he fired more shots.
The independent experts hired by the Post-Dispatch said that they believed that the evidence supported Wilson on some critical points and that a significant struggle occurred in direct and irreconcilable conflict with the account of Johnson. Forensic pathologist from San Francisco, Dr. Judy Melinek, said that Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson in the standard surrender position – with hands up and palms out – when he was shot. While other scenarios could explain the evidence and there is still the question of why so many shots were fired (even if the officer’s account is true), there may remain considerable conflicts in the original account.
Those conclusions would seem to support growing view that the Obama Administration also found insufficient evidence to support any federal charge in the shooting and is leaking stories to prepare people for the closing of the investigation.
Source: CBS
Porkchop, Great comment. But, not only do many folks rush to judgment, they reject the facts and jury decisions. They are anarchists. There is big money to be made in spinning and fanning flames. And, the MSM bleeds e very last cent out of it. I saw a report on the CBS Evening News that was a lie. Their reporter on this story has no objectivity and put up a quote that intentionally mislead anyone who had not been following this story. Viewers mean $’s.
“A Tennessee statute provides that, if, after a police officer has given notice of an intent to arrest a criminal suspect, the suspect flees or forcibly resists, “the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest.” Acting under the authority of this statute, a Memphis police officer shot and killed appellee-respondent Garner’s son as, after being told to halt, the son fled over a fence at night in the backyard of a house he was suspected of burglarizing. The officer used deadly force despite being “reasonably sure” the suspect was unarmed and thinking that he was 17 or 18 years old, and of slight build. The father subsequently brought an action in Federal District Court, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for asserted violations of his son’s constitutional rights. The District Court held that the statute and the officer’s actions were constitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed.
Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 497 U. S. 7-22. ” (Tennesse v Garner, 471 U.S. 1)
OMG, LOL lolLOLlollolololololol! Assume nothing indeed.
Just putting it on the record, SWM. If I have learned anything it this world, and particularly here, it is ASSUME NOTHING. And, w/ the spin already going on, I am being hyper vigilant in that regard. Plus, there are some folks here not bright enough to know that.
“Regardless of how one reads this evidence, it is another cautionary tale in rushing to judgment in such cases before the investigation is completed.”
Rushing to judgment and jumping to conclusions seem to be pretty much the only forms of exercise that the majority of people partake of these days. Those kinds of exercises generate the essential energy that drives our political system. The media amplify that energy and various demagogues direct it to appeal to various demographics’ ignorance or preconceived notions of what the facts should be.
“But, you do understand he is not supposed to be objective. ” nick. Duh, I have lived with attorneys and law clerks most of my life.
Combine the unquestionable struggle for the gun in the car, combine it w/ the out of control aggressive behavior in the convenience store 10 minutes prior, and we have a huge, testosterone filled young man, out of control. I had to take down inmates like this guy, w/o a gun or any weapon. You have NO IDEA what it’s like.
Yesterday bettykath pointed out the gravamen of the factual uncertainty being generated by propaganda:
“Wilson’s Use of Deadly Force Would Be Unlawful Absent Imminent Deadly Threat
And there we have it. Despite the plain-language reading of §563.046 that a law enforcement can use deadly force to make an arrest when he reasonably believes the person making the arrest has committed a felony, in the aftermath of Tennessee v. Garner and subsequent changes to Missouri case law and jury instructions, the use of deadly force to make an arrest of a non-dangerous fleeing felon is not permitted under Missouri law.”
06.14 JUSTIFICATION: USE OF FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
PART A–GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
One of the issues (as to Count _____) (in this case) is whether the use of force by the defendant against [name of victim] was lawful. In this state, the use of force (including the use of deadly force) by a law enforcement officer in making an arrest or in preventing escape after arrest is lawful in certain situations.
A law enforcement officer can lawfully use force to make an arrest or to prevent escape if he is making a lawful arrest or an arrest which he reasonably believes to be lawful. An arrest is lawful if the officer (reasonably believes that the person being arrested (has committed) (or) (is committing) a crime) (is executing an arrest warrant which he believes to be valid).
In making a lawful arrest or preventing escape after such an arrest, a law enforcement officer is entitled to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to effect the arrest or prevent the escape.
A law enforcement officer in making an arrest need not retreat or desist from his efforts because of resistance or threatened resistance by the person being arrested.
But in making an arrest or preventing escape, a law enforcement officer is not entitled to use deadly force, that is, force which he knows will create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury, unless he reasonably believes that the person being arrested is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon or that the person may endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay (emphasis added).
And, even then, a law enforcement officer may use deadly force only if he reasonably believes the use of such force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or prevent the escape.
PART B–SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS
On the issue of use of force by a law enforcement officer (as to Count _____), you are instructed as follows:
First, if the defendant was a law enforcement officer (making) (or) (attempting to make) a lawful arrest (or what he reasonably believed to be a lawful arrest) or [name of victim] for the crime of [name of crime] and the defendant reasonably believed that use of force was necessary to effect the arrest of to prevent the escape of [name of victim] and
Second, the defendant reasonably believed that [name of victim] (was attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon) (or) (would endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay) [emphasis added], and the defendant reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to effect the arrest of [name of victim], then the defendant’s use of force was lawful.
The state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entitled to use force as a law enforcement officer. Unless you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entitled to use force as a law enforcement officer against [name of victim], you must find the defendant not guilty (under Count ____).
As used in this instruction, the term “serious physical injury” means physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes serious disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part of the body.
The cop said he was charging when those shots were fired.
SWM, I have been somewhat impressed w/ the Brown family’s barrister. But, you do understand he is not supposed to be objective. He’s is an advocate for the family. He said what he is supposed to say.
Brown was unarmed when he was shot 20 feet away.
http://time.com/3534140/ferguson-michael-brown-grand-jury-leaks-investigation/“Most importantly, the leaks do not provide new forensic information about the sequence of fatal shots. “What we want to know is why Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown multiple times and killed him even though he was more than 20 feet away from his patrol car,” Benjamin Crump, an attorney for Brown’s family, said in a statement. “This is the crux of the matter!” The autopsy does not offer any answers.”
When a suspect tries and takes a cops gun the suspect immediately raises the level to deadly force. Not only is the cops life in danger when that occurs, but so are the lives of other people. The suspect must be taken down.
“Evidence and fact spinning has begun. If you try and take a cops gun he is SUPPOSED to shoot you.” nick Could you give a citation for that? Cops do have a tremendous amount of leeway and that is why Darren Wilson will probably not be indicted. But is a cop required to shoot you?
Evidence and fact spinning has begun. If you try and take a cops gun he is SUPPOSED to shoot you.
Dr. Judy Melinek and Judy Woodruff discuss the forensic evidence and its limitations with Dr. Judy Melinek of the University of California, San Francisco on PBS Newshour:
What Michael Brown’s autopsy report reveals about his death
:))
In Turkey, empty smoke grenade that hit on the head. “Berk Elvan” Are you up for lying like the lies.
Ahhh, a lead off TPM link. PERFECT!
Holder is leaking the news and playing Captain Renault about it. Despicable AG soon to be thankfully gone.
Expert: My Michael Brown Autopsy Analysis Was Taken ‘Out Of Context’
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/judy-melinek-ferguson-autopsy-report-msnbc
Excerpt:
That would be consistent with Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson’s version of events, as reported by the New York Times and others. Melinek was also paraphrased by the newspaper saying that the autopsy was inconsistent with witness accounts of Brown having his hands up in surrender when he was shot by Wilson.
But Melinek told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell on Wednesday that her comments had been taken “out of context” and that she believed the findings could be explained by other scenarios as well.
“What happens sometimes is when you get interviewed and you have a long conversation with a journalist, they’re going to take things out of context,” she said. “I made it very clear that we only have partial information here. We don’t have the scene information. We don’t have the police investigation. We don’t have all the witness statements. And you can’t interpret autopsy findings in a vacuum.”