Michael Brown Case

[HMS Sophia]

Well, I never heard anything about Lots Of Money(TM). I did hear about him having to resign for whatever reason, just that his lawyer said not to until things were resolved for image reasons.

Re: lots of money, the numbers being thrown around are six figs of donations (circa $400,000) and similar for the ABC interview (circa $500,000).

[Gaidin]

Well, that's ABC and donations, and might lower pressure for fast decisions, but Ferguson sure as shit ain't giving him money apparently.

[Flagg]

Wait, what? If he did nothing wrong as the Ferguson PD and a Grand Jury maintained, why isn't he being paid his the benefits he earned?

[AniThyng]

Wait, what? If he did nothing wrong as the Ferguson PD and a Grand Jury maintained, why isn't he being paid his the benefits he earned?

Probably because if they gave him the benefits they'd think it possible it provokes more protests regardless. It looks to me that it really doesn't matter what really happened in this individual case because the well of race and police relations is poisoned in general

[Agent Fisher]

Wait, what? If he did nothing wrong as the Ferguson PD and a Grand Jury maintained, why isn't he being paid his the benefits he earned?

Cause if they tried to give him whatever benefits he might be legally entitled to, it'd just kick up more protests. And there may be clauses in the contract about separating from the department before a certain amount of time, since some times officers go from one department to another, because they either didn't like the current department or got a better offer, or just really wanted to work for one particular city or county.

[Gaidin]

How old is he? Has he even been a cop long enough, much less been working there long enough to be considered for something like that anyway?

[Patroklos]

Three years on the this particular force from what I have read.

[Flagg]

Wait, what? If he did nothing wrong as the Ferguson PD and a Grand Jury maintained, why isn't he being paid his the benefits he earned?

Cause if they tried to give him whatever benefits he might be legally entitled to, it'd just kick up more protests. And there may be clauses in the contract about separating from the department before a certain amount of time, since some times officers go from one department to another, because they either didn't like the current department or got a better offer, or just really wanted to work for one particular city or county.

Wait, you think that if you are owed benefits they can be denied to you because people don't like the fact you're getting it? The world totally does not work that way. If it did all those bankers would have gone ker-splat on the pavement (figuratively, unfortunately) when they lost their golden parachutes in 2008.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Depending on how he resigned, he may have lost the benefits he'd normally get. Without looking at policy where he was, we can't say if it was a lack of tenure, how he left, or if there was something the department knows about that gives cause to withhold any benefits he normally would get upon leaving.

Unless someone feels like looking up how benefits work there, it's all just pointless speculation.

[Me2005]

Somebody really needs to invent some Judge Dredd or Robertcop style taser bullets.

Someone did. They're apparently discontinued, and I can't figure out why; but I suspect it's some combination of 'not being reliably effective' and 'being lethal to frequently,' as is often the case with less-lethal weapons.

[Sea Skimmer]

Someone did. They're apparently discontinued, and I can't figure out why; but I suspect it's some combination of 'not being reliably effective' and 'being lethal to frequently,' as is often the case with less-lethal weapons.

It was abandon only because of very poor sales and the very high expense of maintaining the ability to manufacturing it, it was 150 dollars or some such a cartridge. And it was only meant to be fired from a dedicated shotgun, which nobody liked either. The purpose of THAT being specifically to preclude confusion of lethal and less lethal ammo.

Some hundreds of rounds and dozens of shotguns were actually sold and some actually used by police in the US but the average response was 'no thanks'. Certainly law enforcement fear of reliability and lethality problems was a factor in why it didn't sell though. Another company is presently marketing a similar cartridge with an electrified dart, it must be launched from a dedicated paintball like airgun. This is a generally much cheaper approach to take, but it hasn't gained any real sales either.

[Joun_Lord]

Somebody really needs to invent some Judge Dredd or Robertcop style taser bullets.

Someone did. They're apparently discontinued, and I can't figure out why; but I suspect it's some combination of 'not being reliably effective' and 'being lethal to frequently,' as is often the case with less-lethal weapons.

The problem with the shotgun Taser is its high cost didn't make it worth it to be used compared to bog standard killy bullets, along with the fact its large size impeded its usage. Most law enforcement officers carry sidearms only, tend to not be walking around with a long gun. The Taser shotty would be a trunk gun just like a regular shotgun, something broken out when they have the time to stop and pull their gear out of the boot of the vehicle.

For a taser type weapon to be effective and be adopted by law enforcement it would of course have to relatively close in price to a Glock and its ammo close in price to box of 9s or 40 short and weaks. But the main thing is it would have to be like a Glock, something someone can toss in their holster and patrol with comfortably and without scaring people who are triggered by the mere sight of a weapon. One of the reasons why the standard pistol shaped taser is well liked is it can be carried same as a sidearm and its drawing and firing requires the same sort of muscle memory as would draw a handgun (leading to some tragedies on occasion when the two weapons are too close together).

What I would want for the cops to have, and probably they would like to have too, is just a standard-ish bullet that can stun and that fits in a standard clipazine (maybe painted bright blue to differentiate it from standard magazines) that can be jammed into a bog standard Glock 17. No carrying extra equipment except maybe an extra mag or two, no new training, no new devices bought but the ammunition and cops would probably love that shit. Being a standard pistol they have the option of going lethal if the situation requires it, making sure their hands aren't tied if the ammunition proves to be ineffective for whatever reason (some drugged up person or someone wearing armor). That is something I believe the Mossberg X12 was unable to do, though considering it was a specialized weapon working alongside lethal firearms it really didn't need to.

Unfortunately such tech is probably decades away from being reliable and cheap enough to outfit every cop with.

[Grumman]

What I would want for the cops to have, and probably they would like to have too, is just a standard-ish bullet that can stun and that fits in a standard clipazine (maybe painted bright blue to differentiate it from standard magazines) that can be jammed into a bog standard Glock 17. No carrying extra equipment except maybe an extra mag or two, no new training, no new devices bought but the ammunition and cops would probably love that shit.

That's not a good idea. Being small enough to be used as a sidearm is important, but also important is that the taser-replacement is completely incompatible with whatever lethal weaponry a cop carries. "I was reaching for my taser" is bad enough without adding "I forgot to change magazines" and "I forgot to clear the lethal round from the chamber while changing magazines".

Drawing and firing a taser should be completely unlike drawing and firing a pistol, such that one cannot be done while attempting the other. At the very least, you'd want something like the M203, where the trigger for the grenade launcher is nowhere near the trigger for the assault rifle.

[Enigma]

I have a question, can the DA ignore the Grand Jury and proceed with a trial?

[Patroklos]

If he can I can't imagine a judge accepting it. Can you imagine trying to explain that to a trial jury as said prosecutor?

[TheHammer]

The prosecutor didn't want this to go to trial. That's why the grand jury process went the route that it did. So he could shift the blame, while orchestrating the outcome he desired through soft questioning of Wilson and emphasis of testimony favoring his side of things.

[Terralthra]

Depending on the state, District Attorneys don't have to involve a grand jury at all, except under some very specific circumstances. DAs can bring charges on their own judgment. As TheHammer said, the DA went with a grand jury, and went about presenting the evidence to the Grand Jury the way he did, because he wanted to appear as if charges might be brought while guaranteeing that they wouldn't be.

[Joun_Lord]

What I would want for the cops to have, and probably they would like to have too, is just a standard-ish bullet that can stun and that fits in a standard clipazine (maybe painted bright blue to differentiate it from standard magazines) that can be jammed into a bog standard Glock 17. No carrying extra equipment except maybe an extra mag or two, no new training, no new devices bought but the ammunition and cops would probably love that shit.

That's not a good idea. Being small enough to be used as a sidearm is important, but also important is that the taser-replacement is completely incompatible with whatever lethal weaponry a cop carries. "I was reaching for my taser" is bad enough without adding "I forgot to change magazines" and "I forgot to clear the lethal round from the chamber while changing magazines".

Drawing and firing a taser should be completely unlike drawing and firing a pistol, such that one cannot be done while attempting the other. At the very least, you'd want something like the M203, where the trigger for the grenade launcher is nowhere near the trigger for the assault rifle.

If the tech came into use I'd want it to almost completely replace the standard deadly sidearm where anytime a cop draws his sidearm it would be to stun rather then kill. The deadly weapons should be akin to shotguns and ARs, trunk guns that are considered more secondary weapons for LEOs and not their first response weapon. It should be standard procedure to have stun rounds in the weapon with deadly ammo only put in if the situation warrants it. The deadly ammo should also be completely separated from the stun bullets on the officers utility belt so as there is no mix-ups, or atleast fewer

Yes there would probably be fuck-ups even with new training, not to mention it would probably still be deadly to certain people like children and elderly and maybe normal people if cops mag dump a whole magazine into a person, but nonetheless such weapons would probably save a crapload of lives that would other wise be lost when a cops only tool is deadly. Things like that kid shot with the Wii-mote or the 12 year old kid shot with the airgun in Ohio recently would still be fucked up but they wouldn't be tragedies if the cops primary weapon shocked instead of stab with bullets.

[Grumman]

The prosecutor didn't want this to go to trial. That's why the grand jury process went the route that it did. So he could shift the blame, while orchestrating the outcome he desired through soft questioning of Wilson and emphasis of testimony favoring his side of things.

The testimony was irrelevant in this case. The examination of the police car and autopsy proves that Brown was shot reaching into the car and likely trying to grab the gun itself. The audio recording and autopsy prove that every bullet fired was fired with Brown facing towards Wilson. The blood trail proves Brown was advancing towards Wilson when he died. There is nothing that a witness could say that outweighs the overwhelming physical evidence from multiple sources, all in Wilson's favour.

[TheHammer]

The prosecutor didn't want this to go to trial. That's why the grand jury process went the route that it did. So he could shift the blame, while orchestrating the outcome he desired through soft questioning of Wilson and emphasis of testimony favoring his side of things.

The testimony was irrelevant in this case. The examination of the police car and autopsy proves that Brown was shot reaching into the car and likely trying to grab the gun itself. The audio recording and autopsy prove that every bullet fired was fired with Brown facing towards Wilson. The blood trail proves Brown was advancing towards Wilson when he died. There is nothing that a witness could say that outweighs the overwhelming physical evidence from multiple sources, all in Wilson's favour.

On your first assertion - No one disputes that there was an altercation at the car. (The manner of the altercation still being in dispute) But is at most tangential to the fatal shooting itself which occurred far away from the car. Further, once Brown was killed blood could have been transferred to the gun at any time.

Second, I fail to see how audio and autopsy could prove every bullet fired was fired with Brown facing towards Wilson considering many of them were missed shots. The fatal shots came from the front, but if a man is surrendering he will likely turn around to do so. Many eye witnesses reported he stumbled forward after having been shot. None of the evidence supports Wilson's assertion that Brown was "charging" him at the end.

Indeed, what sense would it make for someone who was running away from an armed man to then turn around and charge him out in the open? Why would he stop running? If he was out of breath, then he certainly doesn't have the wind to turn around and try to attack someone with a gun and a clear line of sight. It defies common sense.

Finally, testimony does certainly matter regardless of the physical evidence. It will tell you if Wilson actually told Brown to get don, or if Brown ever raised his hands in surrender. And among the testimony we have a big clue that there is something very wrong with Wilson's account of what happened. Thanas highlighted this earlier, but testimony given by another officer who questioned Wilson after the shooting made it explicitly clear that Wilson told him that he Knew Nothing About the Robbery. Yet during his testimony Wilson asserted that it was because of the robbery that he stopped Brown in the first place. If Wilson was on the up and up why did he lie about that aspect? How then can any of the rest of his testimony (which is frankly fairly unbelievable) be relied upon? Further, why didn't the DA, who was ostensibly prosecuting, then call that statement into question if he was in fact doing HIS job.

[Simon_Jester]

Second, I fail to see how audio and autopsy could prove every bullet fired was fired with Brown facing towards Wilson considering many of them were missed shots.

If all the shots that hit Brown came from in front, it would be quite surprising if some of the shots that missed him came from behind? I can imagine situations where that happens but they seem very counterintuitive.

Indeed, what sense would it make for someone who was running away from an armed man to then turn around and charge him out in the open? Why would he stop running? If he was out of breath, then he certainly doesn't have the wind to turn around and try to attack someone with a gun and a clear line of sight. It defies common sense.

While that would be an irrational action, it would hardly be the first time an angry young man did a stupid thing. If the eyewitness testimony were uniform on this issue I'd buy your point, but...

Finally, testimony does certainly matter regardless of the physical evidence. It will tell you if Wilson actually told Brown to get don, or if Brown ever raised his hands in surrender.

Am I wrong? My impression is that eyewitness testimony is at best conflicted on this point, with most of the witnesses supporting the idea that Brown was not moving to surrender.

And among the testimony we have a big clue that there is something very wrong with Wilson's account of what happened. Thanas highlighted this earlier, but testimony given by another officer who questioned Wilson after the shooting made it explicitly clear that Wilson told him that he Knew Nothing About the Robbery. Yet during his testimony Wilson asserted that it was because of the robbery that he stopped Brown in the first place. If Wilson was on the up and up why did he lie about that aspect? How then can any of the rest of his testimony (which is frankly fairly unbelievable) be relied upon? Further, why didn't the DA, who was ostensibly prosecuting, then call that statement into question if he was in fact doing HIS job.

This is an excellent point, and frankly I consider Wilson's testimony to be dodgy and irrelevant. I've been sticking to my best effort to interpret the forensics (when, where, and what the shots struck Brown), and the eyewitness testimony (which is conflicted).

[TheHammer]

Second, I fail to see how audio and autopsy could prove every bullet fired was fired with Brown facing towards Wilson considering many of them were missed shots.

If all the shots that hit Brown came from in front, it would be quite surprising if some of the shots that missed him came from behind? I can imagine situations where that happens but they seem very counterintuitive.

It's more difficult to hit a moving target. If he was running away the shots from behind would be more likely to miss. Not saying they did or didn't, I'm saying the autopsy proves absolutely nothing in that regard.

Indeed, what sense would it make for someone who was running away from an armed man to then turn around and charge him out in the open? Why would he stop running? If he was out of breath, then he certainly doesn't have the wind to turn around and try to attack someone with a gun and a clear line of sight. It defies common sense.

While that would be an irrational action, it would hardly be the first time an angry young man did a stupid thing. If the eyewitness testimony were uniform on this issue I'd buy your point, but...

Yes just because it would be irrational doesn't mean it didn't happen. However AFAIK Few if any of the eye witness testimony supports the idea that he "charged at" Wilson.

Finally, testimony does certainly matter regardless of the physical evidence. It will tell you if Wilson actually told Brown to get don, or if Brown ever raised his hands in surrender.

Am I wrong? My impression is that eyewitness testimony is at best conflicted on this point, with most of the witnesses supporting the idea that Brown was not moving to surrender.

No, in fact the majority of witnesses that answered that question stated he had his hands up. See the chart I linked at the bottom of the thread.

And among the testimony we have a big clue that there is something very wrong with Wilson's account of what happened. Thanas highlighted this earlier, but testimony given by another officer who questioned Wilson after the shooting made it explicitly clear that Wilson told him that he Knew Nothing About the Robbery. Yet during his testimony Wilson asserted that it was because of the robbery that he stopped Brown in the first place. If Wilson was on the up and up why did he lie about that aspect? How then can any of the rest of his testimony (which is frankly fairly unbelievable) be relied upon? Further, why didn't the DA, who was ostensibly prosecuting, then call that statement into question if he was in fact doing HIS job.

This is an excellent point, and frankly I consider Wilson's testimony to be dodgy and irrelevant. I've been sticking to my best effort to interpret the forensics (when, where, and what the shots struck Brown), and the eyewitness testimony (which is conflicted).

Which brings it back on the prosecutor. They should have been able to identify which witnesses gave consistent reliable testimony and which ones didn't. They never wanted this to go to trial so they made no such efforts, instead leading the inconsistent testimony serve as fuel for doubt as to what happened. I stumbled upon this useful chart which should give you an idea of the general consensus. Proper questioning from the prosecutor, and challenging of Wilson's testimony, certainly in the case of whether or not he knew about the robbery when he had other testimony from his fellow officer that he did not know about the Robbery would have likely brought an indictment. There may not have been enough evidence, ultimately, to convict, but this case should have gone to trial.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/new ... -shooting/

It shows you how each witness answered key questions on what happened. Certainly there were enough asserting misconduct that this should have gone to trial, had the prosecutor pushed on the key inconsistencies in Wilson's testimony and the general eye witness consensus on what happened.

[Terralthra]

Grand juries aren't typically shown exculpatory evidence at all. That's not the way grand juries have ever worked. They are shown the evidence gathered by the person wishing to bring charges, typically condemnatory in nature, and a desired charge or charges, at which point they decide whether or not enough evidence exists to proffer charges, ie "Could this/these crime(s) have been committed? By this person?" No defense attorney is present, and the suspect is almost never present for the grand jury.

The whole point of a grand jury is that it exists to give a person who wants charges brought before a court a way to do that. Many countries have disposed of them, since there are now public prosecutors who purport to bring charges on the state's behalf. A grand jury almost always brings charges when convened, since that's essentially the point. As previously stated, the whole way in which this has been conducted demonstrates that the DA didn't want an indictment, and he arranged the grand jury process such that he got exactly what he wanted, while washing his hands of direct culpability for no indictment.

Judging which witnesses are credible and which are not, which person's stories best align with the forensic evidence, is a job expressly suited to a court room, with people to make the case each way. In this case, it was done in private, with questioning designed to call the witnesses' credibility into doubt who supported a case against Wilson, while never questioning the credibility of Wilson himself (and as previously noted, not even asking him difficult questions, to the point that he had to ask them of himself so he could get his flimsy justification for shooting someone who was running on the record).

[Simon_Jester]

It's more difficult to hit a moving target. If he was running away the shots from behind would be more likely to miss. Not saying they did or didn't, I'm saying the autopsy proves absolutely nothing in that regard.

OK, so to be clear, you're working on the idea that Wilson shot at Brown repeatedly and missed, then Brown stopped and surrendered, then Wilson more or less emptied the magazine into him, killing him.

Whose testimony is this based on again?

No, in fact the majority of witnesses that answered that question stated he had his hands up. See the chart I linked at the bottom of the thread.

Hm. Interesting link in the comments; someone looking at the chart claims it's wrong.

They may be full of shit, or they may be right, I in all honesty don't have the time to go look up the details. Here's their "corrected" version.

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaemb ... iginal.jpg

Which brings it back on the prosecutor. They should have been able to identify which witnesses gave consistent reliable testimony and which ones didn't. They never wanted this to go to trial so they made no such efforts, instead leading the inconsistent testimony serve as fuel for doubt as to what happened.

I am honestly inclined to agree with this. Do we have evidence that they suppressed witnesses favorable to prosecution?

The forensics were a bit more ambiguous than I had previously thought.

I stumbled upon this useful chart which should give you an idea of the general consensus. Proper questioning from the prosecutor, and challenging of Wilson's testimony, certainly in the case of whether or not he knew about the robbery when he had other testimony from his fellow officer that he did not know about the Robbery would have likely brought an indictment. There may not have been enough evidence, ultimately, to convict, but this case should have gone to trial.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/new ... -shooting/

Frankly, the point of the indictment is (I agree with Terralthra) to establish that there is enough evidence to make it seem plausible that a crime has been committed. While some of the eyewitness testimony which asserts that Brown was murdered is suspect, I don't think all of it is.

Although the grand jury would be justified in ignoring obviously wrong/lying witnesses.*

Anyway. I may think Wilson would have had a good chance of winning the trial, but I think it should have gone to trial.

*I.e. an eyewitness that claims Wilson repeatedly shot Brown in the back while he was kneeling on the pavement, then rolled the body over and blew his brains out from point blank range, is clearly lying because that's not where the bullets went.

[Me2005]

Anyway. I may think Wilson would have had a good chance of winning the trial, but I think it should have gone to trial.

Do grand jury rulings set precedent? If so, it may be that the state/city/county doesn't want to set a precedent of going to trial over *every* police shooting. Especially when, as I mentioned earlier, deadly force is authorized for officers making an arrest (in some situations) in that state.