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
Michelle …
“[Thou] hath more hair than wit, and more faults than hairs, and more wealth than faults.” -Shakespeare (The Two Gentlemen of Verona)
I do desire we may be better strangers. – Shakespeare (As You Like It)
According to Michele Bachmann, cameras were invented 300 years after slavery was abolished with the creation of the U.S. constitution.
And, she nominated PC the S, yorkshire trooper poper, and dogbuscuits for the genius hall of frame:
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2201602/thumbs/o-3418198-570.jpg?6
oops typo …
And you too trooperdork.
I don’t think he would have shot the Reverend Al. After all the gentle giant did not need a gun to get what he wants. I bet he would choke him out and steal that big ass medallion that the Rev used to wear.
Paul C. Schulte
BarkinDog – Al Sharpton would have been Shot by Brown
==============================
You have a wonderful sense of rumor.
BarkinDog
Under the standard set forth in Tennessee v. Garner this cop had the right to shoot the fleeing felon. You don’t need to rely solely on the Missouri statute.
Al Sharpton would have shot this punk.
===============================
Thanks for you opinion porking bog.
I will inform the authorities of your sacred opinion.
Paul C. Schulte
Man, you are backin’ and hoeing. You are wrong on the facts, wrong on the law and wrong on the Constitution.
==============================
I love it when you prove my point about Squeeky being more aware than you are.
Under the standard set forth in Tennessee v. Garner this cop had the right to shoot the fleeing felon. You don’t need to rely solely on the Missouri statute.
Al Sharpton would have shot this punk.
BarkinDog – Al Sharpton would have been Shot by Brown 😉
Paul C. Schulte
Next you will be pulling out old sodomy statutes and saying we should rely on them.
==========================
Leave Squeeky out of this.
She is more aware than you are.
All constitutional violations are illegal, but not all illegality is unconstitutional.
Don’t make me start quoting Saint Raygun.
Paul C. Schulte
You clearly slept through your civics class didn’t you? So, the President ignores the Constitution all the time. Are his actions illegal? Or just unconstitutional?
…
============================
I am sorry you still struggle with the obvious.
Both.
Unconstitutional and illegal are synonymous.
Next you will be pulling out old sodomy statutes and saying we should rely on them.
You clearly slept through your civics class didn’t you? So, the President ignores the Constitution all the time. Are his actions illegal? Or just unconstitutional? Illegal subsumes a law or statute is in place and you have broken that law or statute. Wilson is an agent of his governmental unit which is NOT a subset of the United States government. At no point does he answer to the Federal government for his actions. If he runs a stop light who does he answer to?
Darren Smith
Relying solely on an uninvolved third party to review one aspect of case, the autopsy, is not sufficient to judge the outcome of a shooting case such as this.
The medical examiner’s report is important but it does not include all the facts known and the requirement of putting all the evidence together in a cohesive manner is paramount. Moreover, the medical examiner’s role is not to prosecute a case but to gather further evidence and establish a likely cause of death and all other pertinent information related to the investigation. Some jurisdictions, I don’t know if Missouri is one of them, have a county coroner or his/her deputy who can call in an inquest as to determine these matters. Coroner’s inquests do not solely rely on medical examiner’s reports.
In this case it seems to me the grand jury is to decide whether state level criminal charges are indicated. They are charged with considering the totality of the facts to establish if there is probable cause to charge for a crime (true bill) or to not.
There is the possibility that there could be federal charges, but that is another matter and it likely is going to be heavily influenced by the outcome of the state grand jury hearing.
The other possible trials could be a civil case bought by either side, or a departmental hearing to determine if an employee violated department policy. The outcome of these is not completely dependent upon the ruling of the grand jury yet it will influence the matter significantly.
==================================
That is what was done in Tennessee v Garner.
Reliance on an unconstitutional state statute.
Here Missouri is schitzo.
It’s statute is pre 1985 when such statutes were held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Garner, but its petite jury instructions are in accord with Garner.
To not tell that Grand Jury what the law is, that the Missouri statute is unconstitutional, and get Wilson off that way, is illegal.
Off Topic:
Shots fired at a high school in Marysville, WA.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/24/us/washington-school-shooting/
Our liberal friends will of course be sure to agree that what happened to Officer Davis is only right and proper and the only possible good outcome. In their heart of hearts they wish that is what happened to Officer Wilson. Never doubt that.
Also that instead of being released from a mental institution that the suspect should be making commencement speeches. It is only right. It is only just. It is only proper.
Nothing is new in this sorrowful old world.
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
@Dredd
Perhaps it is your style of commenting which covers up the seminal case???
…
==================================
Not likely since I am the only one that has quoted from it.
You need to get up before the turnip wagon leaves the ‘hood for Turley’s Bardosphere.
Relying solely on an uninvolved third party to review one aspect of case, the autopsy, is not sufficient to judge the outcome of a shooting case such as this.
The medical examiner’s report is important but it does not include all the facts known and the requirement of putting all the evidence together in a cohesive manner is paramount. Moreover, the medical examiner’s role is not to prosecute a case but to gather further evidence and establish a likely cause of death and all other pertinent information related to the investigation. Some jurisdictions, I don’t know if Missouri is one of them, have a county coroner or his/her deputy who can call in an inquest as to determine these matters. Coroner’s inquests do not solely rely on medical examiner’s reports.
In this case it seems to me the grand jury is to decide whether state level criminal charges are indicated. They are charged with considering the totality of the facts to establish if there is probable cause to charge for a crime (true bill) or to not.
There is the possibility that there could be federal charges, but that is another matter and it likely is going to be heavily influenced by the outcome of the state grand jury hearing.
The other possible trials could be a civil case bought by either side, or a departmental hearing to determine if an employee violated department policy. The outcome of these is not completely dependent upon the ruling of the grand jury yet it will influence the matter significantly.
Paul C. Schulte
One of the important things about Tennessee v Garner is that it was a very very liberal court. I doubt the Roberts’ court would hold the same way. Justice O’Conner’s dissent is often cited in cases and rarely are police officers jailed for shooting civilians, felon or innocent.
===========================
Oh, you wouldn’t bring up politics and inject it into the legal streams of thought in order to pervert them.
Like votin’ and stuff is would you?
Yes you would.
On a law blog to boot.
You have no clue about what is going on except guttural politics.
How sad.
Man, you are backin’ and hoeing. You are wrong on the facts, wrong on the law and wrong on the Constitution.