Report: Brown Was Not Shot With His Hands In The Air

1408390089660_Image_galleryImage_Officer_DARREN_WILSON_pic1408392017717_Image_galleryImage_Piaget_Crenshaw_who_livesMore 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.

Middle_of_the_crowd_in_FergusonMuch 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

287 thoughts on “Report: Brown Was Not Shot With His Hands In The Air”

  1. @Dredd

    Perhaps it is your style of commenting which covers up the seminal case??? Maybe if wrote more clearly, and just stated the T. v. Garner holding, that cops can’t just gun everybody down who is running from them with narrow exceptions, it would stick more clearly in people’s minds. As the Great Bard once said about cops and robbers:

    Tis but a rest we need, and not eternal sleep. Shakespeare (A Midsummer’s Night Dream)

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  2. Paul C. Schulte

    Actually, the gravamen is did Wilson illegally take the life of Brown. The constitutionality of the issue is another matter entirely. Grand juries do not decide matters of constitutionality, only fact. So, based on the facts presented to the grand jury, will they bill or no bill Wilson? The Feds are concerned with the constitutionality under the Civil Rights Act, but I think they are not making any headway either.
    ==============================
    How bogus can you get?

    Constitutionality is the highest form of legality.

    Anything unconstitutional is illegal.

    The greatest illegal there is.

    Wilson is a government agent and the constitution applies to his actions.

    He can’t kill Brown just because he really really wants to in order to bring his vision of justice to Amurka.

  3. 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.

  4. trooperyork

    It had to be the fashion police who killed JonBennet. While she was running away down a runway. It is an epidemic.
    =============================
    You just get worse and worse.

  5. Paul C. Schulte

    That is not what gravamen means. Could I suggest a Black’s Law Dictionary?

    Paul C. Schulte

    If I am incorrect on the law, cite the correct law.
    ===================================
    You can and do suggest anything other than what matters.

    Your opinion to be exact.

    Which is not to be found in any legal dictionary.

    And you are oblivious to the seminal case.

    Which I have cited over and over and all the leotards have ignored.

    On a law blog.

    That seminal case is Tennessee v Garner.

  6. The gravamen in this case is did LEO Wilson unconstitutionally take the life of Brown.

    Factually and obviously, that did not happen when Brown was not killed.

    It happened when he was killed.

    That happened after whatever happened at the police car before Brown ran away.

    The gravamen deals with shooting Brown down in the street.

    1. The crux of the case is whether or not Brown was charging. How fast can a lineman cover 8 yards — about the distance Brown was shot? Make a decision. Make it count. Take all the time you need in 1.5 seconds or so.

    1. Actually, the gravamen is did Wilson illegally take the life of Brown. The constitutionality of the issue is another matter entirely. Grand juries do not decide matters of constitutionality, only fact. So, based on the facts presented to the grand jury, will they bill or no bill Wilson? The Feds are concerned with the constitutionality under the Civil Rights Act, but I think they are not making any headway either.

  7. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

    Somebody needs to work on some psychotherapy for White Liberals to work out all their rage against their own race.

    ==============================
    Yep.

    We gotta stop them libruls from ‘restin’ white fok … (Symbolic Racism: A Look At The Science – 7).

    We gotta teach um and preach um to ‘rest only knickers.

  8. For the benefit of bettykath and her ilk, here is the press conference with the Ferguson Chief in which he stated that the “initial contact” (when Brown and Johnson were walking in the street). The “initial contact” was not about the robbery. The Chief said that he cannot comment on anything

    Question from reporter: Did Wilson know about the robbery call? Chief; “I don’t know.” –Then follow up (impromptu) questions.

    http://youtu.be/SH9ewI5-wgc

  9. Somebody needs to work on some psychotherapy for White Liberals to work out all their rage against their own race. Maybe they could send them to a weekend retreat where they could lynch some white dummies, and tar and feather some white mannequins. They could even set up a gun range where the white folks could put on blackface, teach then to raise their fists like Black Panthers, and then go shoot some semi-automatic assault rifles at white people targets. They could even set up a liquor store for them to loot, with the tab being included in the price for the retreat.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky – I think you would need a week long or make two week long camp for liberals and progressives. Camp White Guilt.

  10. Annie

    Dredd, some folks will just eat and drink themselves into an early death.

    I wonder where Aridog went? I hope he’s OK. I liked him the best out of the ‘Recruits’.
    =============================
    Yes, but the howling, snarling, and slobbering gets to them eventually.

    Cats, not so much.

    Dig these cats:

  11. bettykath,

    You keep saying that Wilson did not know about the robbery/theft. Yet, here we have the Chief stating that an initial description and a more detailed description was broadcast. Wilson had a radio and police officers are trained to listen to their radio. As such, how can anyone in their right mind claim that Wilson did not know of the robbery?

    http://youtu.be/fyOPhqgryEs

  12. Dredd, some folks will just eat and drink themselves into an early death.

    I wonder where Aridog went? I hope he’s OK. I liked him the best out of the ‘Recruits’.

  13. trooperyork

    So do I.

    I hope you meet up with a Micheal Brown or a Vonderrit Meyers someday.

    Then you will really see a pattern.
    =========================
    I hope you meet yourself some day.

    But do not kill yourself while trying to escape.

    Give yourself time.

  14. The difference between killing an unarmed teen with a blaze of gunfire to stop him from running away whether a split second decision or a three second decision is about 3 seconds.

    But how long it takes to make that illegal decision is irrelevant.

Comments are closed.