Since the development of my first theory of the case, virtually every bit of information regarding the case leaked to the public is supportive of that theory: Officer Darren Wilson lawfully shot robber Michael Brown. Readers should, however, approach this preliminary observation with caution. As I’ve repeatedly noted, I don’t have all, perhaps even most, of the facts. I don’t have copies of the police reports, the autopsy, witness statements, evidence reports, etc. Without those things, it is possible, perhaps likely, that I am wrong in ways small and large, ways I can’t possibly identify at the moment.
The Michael Brown archive may be found here.
Nonetheless, we all must proceed based on the information we do have, and I proceed based on my police experience and knowledge of the law and human nature. Following is a summary of the developments of late October and early November, 2014.
Officer Wilson’s Testimony:
Looting In Ferguson
credit: st.louis.cbs.local
The police officer who fatally shot an unarmed 18-year-old in a St. Louis suburb last summer has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as they struggled over his gun, The New York Times reported.
Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson has told authorities that Michael Brown reached for the gun during a scuffle, the Times reported in a story posted on its website Friday night. The officer’s account to authorities did not explain why he fired at Brown multiple times after emerging from his vehicle, according to the newspaper.
The Times reported that the account of Wilson’s version of events came from government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the Aug. 9 shooting that sparked racial unrest and weeks of protests, some of which turned violent. Wilson is white and Brown black.
There can be no question that Wilson—after consultation with his attorney—has provided a complete account of why he fired. The grand jury surely has it, but the news media simply does not have that information as yet. The best, currently known information indicates that Wilson’s handgun was removed from its holster and fired twice in his vehicle, striking Brown once in the hand.
The Times reported that Wilson has told investigators that he was trying to leave his SUV when Brown pushed him back in and that once inside the vehicle the two began to fight. Wilson told authorities that Brown punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck, the Times reported.
Notice the tired, racial tag at the end of the article:
The Justice Department is investigating the Ferguson Police Department for possible civil rights violations, including whether officers there use excessive force and engage in discriminatory practices. Two-thirds of Ferguson’s 21,000 residents are black but only three of its more than 50 police officers are black.
As I’ve noted several times in this case, the number of Ferguson’s black police officers is indicative of nothing more than that Ferguson has three black police officers. Even though the media can’t seem to leave it alone, nothing more can or should be read into it.
The New York Times confirmed much of this information:
The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.
The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown’s blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson’s uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.”
In September, Officer Wilson appeared for four hours before a St. Louis County grand jury, which was convened to determine whether there is probable cause that he committed a crime. Legal experts have said that his decision to testify was surprising, given that it was not required by law. But the struggle in the car may prove to be a more influential piece of information for the grand jury, one that speaks to Officer Wilson’s state of mind, his feeling of vulnerability and his sense of heightened alert when he killed Mr. Brown.
Police officers typically have wide latitude to use lethal force if they reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger.
One might reasonably interpret Wilson’s testimony to indicate that he and his attorney believe him to be completely justified under Missouri law, as my analysis of that body of law suggests. That analysis of the law makes clear, if my theory of the case is substantially correct, that Wilson was justified, not only by acting in his capacity as a police officer trying to apprehend a violent felon, but in employing deadly force in self-defense under any rational interpretation of the law.
Significantly, even the NYT, which normally fully supports any social justice narrative, is not looking kindly on that narrative in the Brown case:
The officials said that while the federal investigation was continuing, the evidence so far did not support civil rights charges against Officer Wilson. To press charges, the Justice Department would need to clear a high bar, proving that Officer Wilson willfully violated Mr. Brown’s civil rights when he shot him.
Not that the NYT can long be limited to anything as pedestrian and boring as the facts:
Dorian Johnson
credit: cnn.com
However, Mr. Johnson’s description of the scuffle is detailed and specific, and directly contradicts what Officer Wilson has told the authorities.
Mr. Johnson has said that Officer Wilson was the aggressor, backing up his vehicle and opening the door, which hit Mr. Johnson and Mr. Brown and then bounced back.
‘He just reached his arm out the window and grabbed my friend around his neck, and he was trying to choke my friend,’ Mr. Johnson told reporters after the shooting. ‘He was trying to get away, and the officer then reached out and grabbed his arm to pull him inside the car.’
Officer Wilson then drew his weapon, Mr. Johnson said, and threatened to shoot.
‘In the same moment, the first shot went off,” he said. “We looked at him. He was shot. There was blood coming from him. And we took off running.’
Never, Mr. Johnson said, did Mr. Brown reach for the officer’s weapon.
Johnson’s account is suspect for many reasons. Not only was Johnson complicit in a strong-armed robbery, he may have actually been involved in the attack on Wilson. Because Brown died, Johnson may be charged with murder. He has compelling reasons to lie.
His account is essentially the opposite of Wilson’s. No police officer in his right mind would, while seated in his vehicle with the door closed, reach through his window and try to grab a 6’4” nearly 300 pound person by the neck, to say nothing of trying to pull him through the window. Not only would the leverage involved be wrong and not at all in Wilson’s favor, it would be counter to every proper approach tactic Wilson—and any competent police officer—was ever taught. Wilson would need arms of ape-like length to so much as contemplate such a maneuver, and it would be an excellent way to have one’s arm broken.
Consider Johnson’s account. Wilson and Brown are struggling, and Brown—an enormous young man, is surely blocking Johnson’s view of what was happening. He would easily have filled the car window. How could Johnson possibly have seen Wilson drawing his gun and shooting Brown—unless he too was in that window, grabbing for Wilson’s handgun?
And this shot, and a threat to shoot Brown occurred simultaneously with Wilson’s supposed struggle to pull the huge, massive and resisting Brown into his car through the window? One-handed? Nonsense.
The officials briefed on the case said the forensic evidence gathered in the car lent credence to Officer Wilson’s version of events. According to his account, he was trying to leave his vehicle when Mr. Brown pushed him back in. Once inside the S.U.V., the two began to fight, Officer Wilson told investigators, and he removed his gun from the holster on his right hip.
Chief Jon Belmar of the St. Louis County Police Department has said in interviews that Officer Wilson was ‘pushed back into the car’ by Mr. Brown and ‘physically assaulted.’ The department is conducting the local investigation into Mr. Brown’s death.
This account precisely reflects what any competent police officer would have done in approaching Brown and Johnson. He would have left his police vehicle and approached them on foot. To do otherwise would have placed him at a dangerous tactical disadvantage. Police officers need to control every encounter. Remaining in his car would have allowed Brown and Johnson to control the encounter, which is exactly what happened.
There will surely be medical evidence, and likely photographs, to support Wilson’s version of events. In addition, there is no evidence I have seen that supports any sign of injury on Brown’s throat attributable to choking or being grabbed by a single hand, or two hands for that matter.
Benjamin Crump, an integral member of the Trayvon Martin Scheme Team, continues to manipulate the system and misrepresent the truth, just as he did in the Martin case:
In an interview, Benjamin L. Crump, a lawyer for the Brown family, dismissed Officer Wilson’s account of what happened in the S.U.V. that day.
‘What the police say is not to be taken as gospel,’ Mr. Crump said, adding that Officer Wilson should be indicted by the grand jury and his case sent to trial. ‘He can say what he wants to say in front of a jury. They can listen to all the evidence and the people can have it transparent so they know that the system works for everybody.’
He added: ‘The officer’s going to say whatever he’s going to say to justify killing an unarmed kid. Right now, they have this secret proceeding where nobody knows what’s happening and nobody knows what’s going on. No matter what happened in the car, Michael Brown ran away from him.
Crump knows full well that the evidence speaks more eloquently than testimony–that’s what doomed the George Zimmerman prosecution–and the evidence is supportive of Wilson. The suggestion that everyone that might be charged with a crime should be indicted and forced to defend them self is a gross perversion of the justice system–ask any defense attorney. If there is sufficient probable cause, a charge is possible, but never mandatory. Far more than that goes into any charging decision. In America, we don’t arrest people to hold a show trial for social justice purposes. If there is not sufficient evidence to support a charge, refusing to charge Wilson demonstrates “that the system works for everybody.”
Crump also knows full well that what happened in the car matters very much, and that the weight of the evidence indicates that Brown initially tried to flee, but soon stopped, taunted, and charged Wilson who was still reeling from the beating Brown administered only seconds earlier. Crump also knows that Brown was an adult, a huge adult that had minutes earlier committed a strong-armed robbery, and that whether he was armed or not makes no difference.
At the National Review, Rich Lowry had some interesting comments:
It wasn’t so long ago that Ferguson, Mo., was supposed to be an American morality tale of racism, the militarization of police, and all manner of other evil. For a few weeks in August, the attention of the national media focused on the suburb of St. Louis, and MSNBC practically broadcast nothing else. President Barack Obama even mentioned Ferguson at a U.N. speech in the context of terror groups that behead people and sectarian conflicts that kill hundreds of thousands of people.
While the media long ago moved on, the protests have persisted, entering their late, decadent phase of self-indulgent triviality. Cornel West got arrested last week, and Al Sharpton is heading back to Ferguson at the end of the month to pump up attention for what styles itself a movement, although it is more tinny by the day.
A hallmark of August was pointlessly destructive civil disorder, and it’s only gotten more pointless. In late September, the makeshift memorial to Michael Brown on the street in Ferguson burned down, probably set alight by its own candles. This set off minor rioting, including the vandalizing of a beauty salon that has been hit multiple times for the offense of operating a business in a town where protesters are so committed to justice.
By all means, take the link and read the entire commentary.
In the meantime, the Washington Post, no slouch in promoting a hot social justice narrative, published a nearly mournful article:
Justice Department investigators have all but concluded they do not have a strong enough case to bring civil rights charges against Darren Wilson, the white police officer who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Mo., law enforcement officials said.
When racial tension boiled over in Ferguson after the Aug. 9 shooting, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. traveled to the St. Louis suburb to meet with city leaders and protest organizers in an effort to bring calm. He assured them that the federal government would open a civil rights investigation into the fatal shooting of Michael Brown. But that investigation now seems unlikely to result in any charges.
‘The evidence at this point does not support civil rights charges against Officer Wilson,’ said one person briefed on the investigation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.
Justice Department officials are loath to acknowledge publicly that their case cannot now meet the high legal threshold for a successful civil rights prosecution. The timing is sensitive: Tensions are high in greater St. Louis as people await the results of a grand jury’s review of the case.
Many supporters of Brown say they are already convinced there will be no state-level indictment of the officer. Federal officials have wanted to show that they are conducting a full and fair review of the case.
When this article was published on October 31, the Obama Administration was still hoping that Democrats could retain control of the Senate and wanted to hold out the possibility of a sensational show trial of Officer Wilson. Subsequent events have not been kind to that hope. The Post also resurrected Trayvon Martin comparisons:
Authorities faced a similar challenge in the investigation of George Zimmerman in the 2012 shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla. Under federal law for hate crimes, prosecutors have to show that someone has been victimized intentionally because of a racial or other bias.
Law enforcement officials have said privately that there is insufficient evidence to bring federal charges in that case, although the two-year probe technically remains open.
The investigation of the Brown shooting is being conducted by the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division under a federal statute that makes it a crime for a person with government authority — the legal term is ‘acting under color of any law’ — to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
Translation: Those darned civil right laws! They’re actually constitutional. They keep us from doing proper social justice!
Samuel Bagenstos, a former Justice Department principal deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights and now a law professor at the University of Michigan, said the obstacles prosecutors face in the Ferguson case are typical, as are the frustrations of Brown’s supporters.
It is common to have a situation ‘that looks like a constitutional violation and may well be an injustice,’ Bagenstos said. ‘But sometimes the Justice Department does not have the ability to bring a civil rights case under the statutes it enforces.
Translation: A strong-arm robber assaults a police officer, tries to get his handgun and ends up dead. This is obviously an injustice! It’s those darned statutes again! No wonder the robber’s supporters are frustrated; there’s just no social justice!
Can A Nobel Peace Prize Be Far Away?
Lesley McSpadden
credit: abcnews.go.com
The local St. Louis CBS affiliate has this:
Michael Brown Sr. and Lesley McSpadden [Michael Brown’s Parents] are scheduled to address the 53rd Session of the United Nations Committee Against Torture in Geneva on Nov. 12 and 13. A Saint Louis University law professor is helping to organize the trip and to solicit online donations for the couple’s travel expenses.
The trip comes as a St. Louis County grand jury prepares to conclude its inquiry into the Aug. 9 shooting death of Brown by Ferguson officer Darren Wilson.
Family attorney Anthony Gray told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that Brown’s parents plan to leave on Nov. 10.
First, President Obama denigrates America–yet again–before the UN with mention of this case, and now Brown’s parents, whose parenting skills and attentiveness reasonable people might legitimately question, are honored guests before the UN, the better to complete what Mr. Obama started. It’s a strange, strange world.
Rules Of Engagement:
This is one of the most bizarre things I’ve ever seen. It amounts to criminals announcing their upcoming crimes and telling the police not to arrest them. The most bizarre aspect of it is the police appear to be considering going along with it.
Tensions in Ferguson, Missouri, have simmered since black teen Michael Brown was shot and killed by a white police officer in August.
And with a grand jury expected to soon deliver its decision on whether to indict the officer, a group that represents protesters says it wants 48-hours notice before the decision is announced so it can help prevent the St. Louis suburb from once again boiling over with anger, violence and confusion.
A group of community members calling themselves the Don’t Shoot Coalition this week released 19 “Rules of Engagement” that touch on major points of contention between protesters and police since Brown’s August 9 killing.
Ferguson’s mayor, John Knowles, is preparing for the worst:
Knowles would not give details on law enforcement’s plan following the grand jury’s decision, CNN affiliate Fox 2 reported Wednesday. But he spoke in broad terms about the approach law enforcement is going to take.
‘It’s not going to be about lining up a fixed line of law enforcement officers somewhere, it’s going to be about being prepared, being reactive, being mobile, being able to respond to wherever an issue breaks out,’ the mayor said.
Knowles also expects there’s going to be unrest outside of Ferguson.
‘It’s not going to be about Ferguson,’ he said. ‘The threats that are out there are threats across the region. Our expectation is that demonstrations will probably break out in several places.’
The mayor told Fox 2 that people who are close to organizers and protesters have informed him that demonstrators are planning to focus on areas around St. Louis and the city’s downtown.
But of course! Ferguson has been pretty much cleaned out. No point in looting there. The “protestor’s” voices can best be heard by stealing expensive consumer electronics; it’s the American way.
A Mother’s Love:
The good folks at Legal Insurrection have the story:
The Smoking Gun web site has obtained a copy of a police report in which Pearlie Gordon (the mother-in-law of Mike Brown’s father), claims that on October 18 she was attacked, beaten, and robbed by Lesley McSpadden (Mike Brown’s biological mother), Desureia Harris (Mike Brown’s biological grandmother), and an assortment of 20-30 others, some of whom are apparently related in some fashion or another to the deceased Mike Brown.
On the basis of this report, embedded below, McSpadden potentially faces felony armed robbery charges.
And what was the cause of this assault? An argument over the constitutional ramifications of protest policy? A heated debate over the limits of free speech? Nothing so pedestrian as that. This was a matter of real importance: money.
The police report succinctly captures the apparent genesis of the October 18 attack on yet another small business in #Ferguson, the street-side kiosk of Ms. Gordon.
Gordon stated she was selling ‘Justice for Mike Brown’ merchandise with [two helpers] on the above parking lot when a large group of about 20-30 subjects ‘jumped out of vehicles and rushed them.’ Gordon said Lesley (or Lezley) McSpadden approached her tent and said ‘you cant [sic] sell this shit [sic].’ Gordan [sic] told McSpadden she was Michael Brown Sr.’s mother in law [sic] and unless McSpadden could produce documentation stating she had a patent on her son’s name she (Gordon) was going to continue to sell her merchandise.
And so the battle lines were drawn, albeit with Gordon at an imprudent 10:1 handicap.
First to strike was purportedly Michael Brown’s biological grandmother, Desureia [sic] Harris, who told Gordon ‘you don’t know my grandson like that. I’m gonna tear this shit [sic] down,’ which Harris allegedly proceeded to do without further delay.
Gordon states that she was then set upon by the horde, receiving repeated blows about the head and shoulders. Gordon specifically reported being struck by McSpadden, as well as other named suspects.
By the time the dust had settled and police and EMS were rolling up, Gordon was reporting that more than $1,500 in merchandise and $400 in cash had been stolen by unknown members of the attacking mob. At least one of Gordon’s helpers was transported to the hospital for injuries sustained in the attack.
Apparently social justice has complex rules that govern commerce and profit. Violation of those rules will be punished by traditional social justice methods of social change and reconciliation: assault, destruction of property, robbery and theft. Ah, the nobility of the Ferguson protestors! Who can fail to sympathize with such honorable, altruistic people? Who can fail to see the righteousness of their cause?
More, I’m sure, to come in the near future.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Well, if you want a front-row seat, my hotel is about a mile from the courthouse in Clayton. Little too close for comfort, to me. Unless the announcement happens Thanksgiving weekend, I’ll be here for the…festivities.
Don’t take any chances. No more Reginald Dennys.
I’m good to go. I go to work, then back to my hotel, order dinner. In-room… precautions in place.
And hey – hopefully it’ll be all for nothing.
To be fair, what doomed the George Zimmerman prosecution was that the Florida statute for self-defense doesn’t classify it as an affirmative defense in which the burden of proof shifts to the defendant. Had the events happened out of Florida, Zimmerman would almost certainly correctly be in prison. As it was, he is correctly not in prison.
Um, nonsense. ALL available evidence supported a self-defense claim. No evidence whatsoever supported a murder allegation.
Also, the burden of proof never shifts to the defendant (in any state not named Ohio). The defendant only bears the burden of production of any evidence to support a self-defense claim. The state then bears the burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ohio is really the only state in which the burden of proof shift for an affirmative defense? It seems like it would be kind of hard to disprove an affirmative claim beyond a reasonable doubt, but my speciality is logic (I teach philosophy), not law.
Hmm, it seems like you are mostly right about this, the other exception being Louisiana (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8669650416501403112). Weird.
One other thought about the Zimmerman case — and it’s been a while since I’ve thought much about it so maybe I’m misremembering part of it — but I thought that Zimmerman basically admitted that he was following Martin around in his car while Martin was walking, and that at some point he turned his headlights off, and then got out of his car to chase on foot.
If I were walking alone at night and some creepy man started following me in his car, and turned off his headlights, and then got out of his car to chase me, honestly, I don’t know what I would do. I would be scared out of my mind. I wouldn’t consider it unreasonable to hide and, if the guy seemed like he might find me to do God knows what, attack him. I would hope that if I killed him, that a court would find that I was acting in self-defense. And I would hope that if he killed me, that a court would not accept a self-defense claim from him, even though in that scenario the first act of physical violence would have come from me. I’m really not sure what else you are supposed to do in that situation.
As I said, I could be misremembering a detail and I’m certainly not a legal expert, but I never thought Zimmerman’s version of the story, fully taken for granted as true, was all that exculpatory.
First of all, from the moment Martin took off running (and Zimmerman lost sight of him) until the altercation took place, around four minutes elapsed. Martin was some 400 feet from Brandi Green’s home. If he was so allegedly scared, he could have been safe inside her home before Zimnerman ever got out of his truck. Zimmerman never left the vicinity of the sidewalk “T”. So either Martin doubled back to confront Zimnerman (a scenario supported by the testimony of Rachel “Grass Whisperer” Jeantel), or else he waited in ambush. Neither scenario supports the claim that Martin was scared.
Second, “following” someone is not unlawful, and does not legally justify a physical assault in response. The threat of unlawful use of force must be present to use force in self-defense, and either a forcible felony or imminent risk of death or great bodily harm must exist to use deadly force in self-defense.
“Waited in ambush” sounds a lot like hiding and then attacking when hiding no longer seems like it will be effective. Like I said, I don’t know what I would do in that situation (but I do know that I sure I hope if I ever were in such a situation, I’d be armed). Whether following someone in the manner that Zimmerman followed Martin (a private citizen following another, one walking, the other in the car sans headlights, and then on foot with a gun) is unlawful is not really relevant to how I would feel if someone did it to me (and if someone did it to me, I surely would make the case that I felt afraid for my life were I in that situation).
What should Martin have done? Do you think he had a duty to retreat from Zimmerman? Given Zimmerman’s behavior, what reason did Martin have to believe that Zimmerman wasn’t there to hurt him?
Under the law, that fear must be reasonable. The facts of that circumstance belie that such fear was neither sincere nor reasonable.
Duty to retreat from what, exactly? If Martin was in fear, he had ample time to remove himself from the situation, and find safety. He had ample opportunity to call 911. He also could have legally accosted Zimmerman. What he could not legally do, however, was use force against Zimmerman, without some evidence that Zimmerman intended to use unlawful force against him.
Of the two, the one who acted threateningly was not Zimmerman, but Martin. Martin approached Zimmerman’s truck while Zimmerman was on the NEN call, and circled his truck, before running off.
From the moment that Martin took off and Zimmerman lost sight of him, approximately two minutes elapsed before Zimmerman reached the end of the sidewalk. Had Martin gone home, he would have been safely inside well before Zimmerman ever had a chance to regain visual contact.
Martin didn’t act out of fear, reasonable or otherwise. He accosted and assaulted Zimmerman, committing a forcible felony and put Zimmerman in a position reasonably to fear for his life or great bodily harm.
Dear John Chrysostom:
Please forgive my obvious weariness in dealing with this issue. I’ve written thousands and thousands of words on these details. If you’re interested, you may find the Trayvon Martin archive interesting. But briefly, the problem was that if Martin were really fearful, he had more than enough time to be safely indoors, dry, and completely safe, his identity forever hidden, if he chose, but he chose instead to lie in wait for George Zimmerman and attack him.
Again, every element of Florida law–and the laws of virtually every other state–were solidly on the side of Zimmerman and against Martin.
We just disagree about what is reasonable then. It would be very, very unusual for someone to follow me in the way Zimmerman followed Martin. Once he got out of his car and chased me with a gun, if you are saying my fear for my life would be unreasonable, well then we just need to agree to disagree. I don’t know if you’ve ever been chased by a stranger (armed or not), but it doesn’t sound like it.
Frankly, I really don’t know how you can speak with authority about Martin’s state of mind. I don’t know his state of mind either, I can only speak to the state of mind I would be in if I had been followed and then chased by a stranger in a car. And, again, I very strongly hope if I am ever in such a situation I will be armed.
First, “unusual” does not justify the use of force – deadly or otherwise – in self-defense. Second, Martin didn’t see Zimmerman get out of his truck to “follow” him (more accurately: to see where Martin went). So, it is incorrect to claim that Martin was in any way fearful of Zimmerman “following” him.
Martin would have had no way to know that Zimmerman had a gun, given that Zimmerman’s gun was carried concealed, in an IWB holster behind his hip. So, the “chasing with a gun” state of mind is moot.
There was no “chase”. Martin ran, and evaded Zimmerman’s visual contact while Zimmerman was still in his truck. Zimmerman got out of his truck to see where Martin went, but never caught sight of him, at least for the remainder of the NEN call.
Martin’s own actions belie his state of mind. He did not behave as one in fear of his life. He did not avail himself of the ample opportunity to be free of the person allegedly “following” him. He did not reach out for help (using his phone). Of his own volition, he accosted the person of whom he was allegedly afraid.
During his assault of Zimmerman, when John yelled out for him to stop, he ignored him and kept assaulting Zimmerman. He never called for help, even knowing that people were watching.
What empirical evidence exists thoroughly refutes the suggestion that Martin acted out of fear toward Zimmerman.
There was no car chase. Zimmerman passed Martin while driving, then pulled over at the clubhouse to call NEN to report a suspicious person. Martin then approached Zimmerman and circled his truck before walking on. It is possible, but not really known, that Zimmerman may have at that point followed Martin a short distance before Martin took off running.
Absolutely. But you should probably study the relevant use-of-force statutes, to know when you’re legally justified to use deadly force to defend yourself.
Dear John Chrysostom:
Zimmerman left his vehicle because the police dispatcher was asking him to keep telling him what Martin was doing. When Martin ran off, Zimmerman was doing what he had been told, and testified that all he intended to do was try to keep Martin in sight so the police he believed were on their way could find him. His actions demonstrated just that.
The trial proved that Zimmerman not only did nothing illegal or improper, he did what he was being asked to do, and when the dispatcher–who had no authority to tell Zimmerman to do anything–asking him to stop looking for Martin, Zimmerman immediately did and began walking back to his vehicle. It was then that Martin attacked him.
In order of appearance:
” If he was so allegedly scared, he could have been safe inside her home before Zimnerman ever got out of his truck. ” — and if Zimmerman was so thoroughly menaced, he could could have stayed in his truck.
“Of the two, the one who acted threateningly was not Zimmerman, but Martin. Martin approached Zimmerman’s truck while Zimmerman was on the NEN call, and circled his truck, before running off.” — strangely, Zimmerman doesn’t tell the NEO this, despite (later according to Mike) trying to do what the NEO tells him regarding keeping tabs on Martin’s position.
“econd, Martin didn’t see Zimmerman get out of his truck to “follow” him (more accurately: to see where Martin went). So, it is incorrect to claim that Martin was in any way fearful of Zimmerman “following” him.” — speculation, and it could just as easily be argued that the reason why he ran was that he KNEW he was being followed. Considering George’s written testimony, that is exactly what happened, he first encountered Martin at the cut through -the other direction- from the club house.
“he did what he was being asked to do, and when the dispatcher–who had no authority to tell Zimmerman to do anything–asking him to stop looking for Martin, Zimmerman immediately did and began walking back to his vehicle. It was then that Martin attacked him.” — Mike, that is false, and you know it. 12 seconds elapse from the time Zimmerman exits his vehicle until the following comment is made. From there, about 3 minutes of George being parts unknown transpire before the two meet, and that is being real generous. He is on the phone, trying to tell the NEO where he will meet the officer. If he went RIGHT back to his vehicle, it logically should only take about 12 seconds for him to get there, rather than the actual time spent on the phone. Not surprisingly, the fight occurs about 35ish yards from his vehicle: as though he didn’t follow the request he was not obligated to follow.
Dear John Chrysostom:
Welcome to SMM and thanks for your questions. Speaking as one of the few people in the Blogosphere that covered the Martin case in minute detail, including the entire trial, I’m afraid you’ve bought into the social justice narrative of the case rather than the actual facts, evidence and testimony. Zimmerman was acquitted because there was no evidence whatever to bring charges, let alone secure a conviction. The prosecution actually proved the defense’s case.
John, while your comment has superficial appeal (especially your prefatory declaration “to be fair”), it breaks down because (to be fair and frank) you don’t know what you are talking about.
I won’t go into detail because other than bitter Trayvonites, no one has the time nor inclination to relitigate the Trayvon Martin case.
The reason you lost the Trayvon Martin case (and don’t have one against Officer Wilson) is because of a legal concept and one word: burden of proof; evidence.
In a criminal prosecution the government has the burden to PROVE with admissible, material evidence each element of a charge. In most cases a defendant does NOT have to prove innocence. (Some defenses are affirmative, but there were none in Zimmerman’s case.)
Florida lost the case against Zimmerman because the state could not meet its burden of proof and the jury saw through the State’s unsophisticated parlor tricks (e.g., Bernie repeatedly showing to the jury Trayvon Martin on the medical examiner’s table to argue Trayvon Martin was a harmless “peace brother” little boy, obviously outweighed by big bully MMA-trained-fighter Zimmerman.).
In the current situation (Officer Wilson persecution) you have NO EVIDENCE to support what you speculate.
If YOU ever stood falsely accused of a crime I have no doubt you would be thankful that our justice system requires prosecutors to prove the case, with evidence.
Still don’t get it? Read this news story and assume you were Kelli Peters, the teacher volunteer who was framed:
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2014/10/kent_wycliffe_easter_6_mos_jail.php
P.S. Pardon for the poor grammar and misspellings. I had this comment on my computer all day, and only just got to it when closing down for the day.
@MichaelNotMike — back off. Why is this so personal? *I* lost the Zimmerman case? Really? There are better people to have a parasocial relationship with than Zimmerman or Martin or Brown.
As for burden of proof, my only point was that in an affirmative defense, it is strange that the burden of proof doesn’t switch to the defense (except for in Ohio and Louisiana). The burden does switch for other affirmative defenses (for example, if you say that you were insane). But, in case it wasn’t clear, I personally had no burden of proof because I was not involved in this case, and I haven’t even expressed an opinion about the Brown case, which makes your comment all the weirder.
Yes, I wouldn’t want to be “falsely accused” of a crime. I also wouldn’t want to be followed by a stranger. I still continue to believe that had I been in Trayvon’s position, I would really have wanted to be armed. I don’t know if you have ever been chased by a stranger, but I have, and it was terrifying, and the experience completely changed my perspective on gun ownership.
Separately, has it been definitively established that Brown committed a robbery? I don’t ask this to be argumentative, but rather I haven’t been following the case at all since August. In August, it seemed like there was evidence that it wasn’t actually a robbery after all (e.g., http://aattp.org/ferguson-cops-busted-new-video-seems-to-show-brown-paying-for-cigarillos-video/), and the store owners seemed to be denying that it (the 911 call apparently came from a customer who thought they were seeing a robbery). Since you’ve been clearly following this closely, have these issues been answered or has new evidence established definitively that the store was in fact robbed by Brown?
Given that your specialty is logic, I’ll assume that you can watch the video in its entirety, and come to the only logical conclusion: that Brown committed a strong-arm robbery. The claim that the video shows Brown paying for the cigarillos is simply illogical.
As for the call: the owner never disputes either the robbery or the 911 call. He merely states that the call didn’t come from a store employee. I could be crazy, but the burned-down QT with “Snitches Get Stitches” spray-painted on the side might have caused the store owner to parse his words carefully.
That the robbery happened is as good as established fact. Even Dorian Johnson admitted that it happened.
You could have just said “Dorian Johnson admitted that it happened.” That’s all I was looking for.
Did you actually watch the video, though? It is plainly obvious that it depicts a robbery.
I did watch both videos. What they depict isn’t overwhelmingly obvious to me, or else I wouldn’t have asked.
Dear John Chrysostom:
Chip Bennett has already addressed this, but allow me to add that seeing only the evidence available to me–particularly the video–there would be no doubt in the mind of any competent police officer that Mike Brown committed a strong arm robbery under Missouri law. Dorian’s Johnson’s attorney has admitted the robbery. Perhaps the best evidence is that Brown’s mother’s attorney, the execrable Benjamin Crump has been careful not to specifically deny a robbery took place.
John, don’t have time to address this fully, but as others have said, whatever Crump does NOT talk about, you can get a sense that such are problematic areas in his fraudulent narrative.
Crump’s followers floated that rumor, “there was no robbery because the Store’s attorney went on the air and said the owner did NOT call 911 to report the robbery, hence there was no robbery.”
But that’s only the rumor and gossip mills running at full speed. When Crump said “they are just trying to attack my client’s reputation” that’s how you know Big Mike Brown and “Little Johnson” robbed the store.
____________________
If you want to know about the evidence related to the robbery issue here’s what I posted in early October on a litigation site:
“Johnson’s now-suspended lawyer admits his client Little Johnson and Big Mike stole the cigars. Are you contending both Johnson and Bosley are mistaken in their admitting Little Johnson committed the theft? When a perp and his lawyer admit to the crime, but desperately argue relevancy, that sounds cut & dried to me.*
*Crump’s, et al., defense du jour is that the r̶o̶b̶b̶e̶r̶y̶ theft has nothing to do with the shooting. (See where no-longer-an-attorney Freeman Bosley on CNN referred to Little Johnson’s actions as a ‘robbery’ but quickly caught himself and referred to it as a theft.” Others like Sharpton and guests have called it ‘shoplifting.’)
In any event, see the police reports and dispatch records. It was two different independent witnesses INSIDE the store who called 911 as the robbery was occurring.
The store owner’s attorney took to the airwaves to say that his client did NOT call the police. This was out of fear and fright. The store owner and employees received death threats.That’s why the attorney met with media. (The store owner was deathly afraid the rioters would target his store, which did in fact happen.)
By the way, the police 911 tapes have the audio of the calls made by witnesses.”
Click to access ferguson-police-report.pdf
I mean, in the second video, I’m not even sure why anyone would look at it and think robbery. There are all these other customers there seeming to go about their business like nothing significant is happening.
Well, except for the customer who called 911 to report a robbery.
Obviously. But I don’t really understand the behavior of the other customers (and again, I thought you were arguing that the video itself has only one possible interpretation bracketing off everything else). That one customer would be confused about what was happening seems more probable than that everyone else but the one customer would be confused about what was happening. But if, as you say, Dorian Johnson admitted that what happened was a robbery, then it is moot and that’s all I was looking for.
The U.N., however, blasted back at the couple after only mere hours of deliberation. In a statement released early this morning Senior chairmen of the UN’s Committee Against Torture dismissed the couple’s plea entirely.
“The sense of entitlement these people displayed is reprehensible” said chair member, Dr. Amancio Dominguez in an interview with National Report. “We deal with legitimate and widespread instances of human rights violations, and frankly the issues presented to us here are not even a blip on our radar. It is in our opinion after reviewing all the evidence that the officer in question committed absolutely no wrong doing.”
– See more at: http://nationalreport.net/un-dismisses-michael-brown-case-will-intervening-matter/#sthash.tXv77K7p.dpuf
That’s not real… http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/mikebrownun.asp
John Chrysostom are you David Masciotra?
I have no idea who that is. I’m a longtime if sporadic reader of this blog (which I quite enjoy) though I usually ignore posts on these topics…
Sorry for the mistake. Your comments are so far off base that I wonder if you have ever read any of the the discussions here in the the past. Since John Chrysostom has a Catholic connection and Salon writer David Masciotra has a Catholic connection (teaches at University of St. Francis, a Catholic, Franciscan university) I thought there might be a connection and you were just trolling. My mistake. I recommend that you read the complete threads on the Zimmerman Case and the Brown matter at this site and others like Legal Insurrection and the Treehouse then compare with the most informative Huffy Post and Salon with a dab of Washington Post. Sadly both cases don’t even come close to reflecting the real racial issues. They only reflect the false narrative of the perceived “racial” problems that exist (white against black).
Example: I was driving to work one morning and saw at the side of the road is a dead man and another time (a few weeks later) driving to work and seeing police tape where a double shooting occurred the night before (less than a mile from the previous incident), it is painfully obvious that efforts to make things better (in the black communities) are not focused in the right areas. Crime statistics support this and a little common sense does too.
Read the Scott Case and Guerena Case (links at top of page) and you will realize that this site would be the first to call out the police for bad acts.
Again, my bad to think you are trolling.
No problem — I tend avoid these issues precisely because they are so politicized that its hard to register an opinion or even ask for information without activating some kind of ideological triggers. Honestly I didn’t follow the Brown or the Zimmerman cases super closely because I just don’t really care all that much either way and I’m the first to admit I’m not as well informed on either case as I could be. And I read this blog for three reasons: first, I appreciate all the anecodotes from the classroom; second, I appreciate the coverage of second-amendment related news; and third, I appreciate the author’s perspective on controversies about police behavior, both because of his background knowledge and because he seems to call them as he sees them without bias. IIRC, what initially brought me to this blog was the coverage of the David Eckert case, which was outstanding.
I don’t currently teach at a Catholic institution, but you are sort of on the right track with the guess — John Chrysostom is my confirmation saint, and he was a fascinating church father, intellectual, and liturgist.
Well if there’s anything similar to the George Zimmerman attempted railroading, it is the drip, drip, drip of evidence, it all supporting Officer Wilson’s account of events. This is exactly what happened in the Zimmerman case. It seemed like each week tidbits of evidence surfaced, all of it supporting Zimmerman.
As I said in September, the audio timeline and content will alone show this a good shoot.
(Out-of-context – Crump, et al., knew the audio would implode their plans. So just like with Zimmerman, they put their scheme on a fast track. Crump, et al., gambled they could get the case taken away from the grand jury, the prosecutor fired from the case, and Officer Wilson charged, all BEFORE evidence like this became public. Crump, et al., knew it was all a matter of timing. Crump now knows the gig is up.)
Anyway, here’ s some audio that just came out (and there’s more audio too) (Credit to St. Louis Post-Dispatch).
NOTICE HOW THIS AUDIO DESTROYS VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF CRUMP’S FRAUDULENT NARRATIVE. But for the serious subject matter – Brown and Johnson attempting to murder a police officer – it is quite amusing watching Crump, et al., get sliced and diced like vegetables at a Ginzu knife demo.
Aug. 9, 2014 (a Saturday)
11:29 a.m. – 911 dispatcher requests Officer Wilson help other officers search for a man who reportedly threatened to kill a woman.
11:47 a.m. – Wilson radios he is responding to a call for a 2-month-old with breathing problems. Wilson drove his police SUV from the west side of West Florissant Avenue to Glenark Drive, east of Canfield Drive and Copper Creek Court, where the fatal encounter would soon occur.
11:53 a.m. – 911 dispatcher announces “stealing in progress” at the Ferguson Market. 911 operator is talking to the 911 caller in the background.
11:53 a.m. – 19 seconds later, 911 dispatcher announces suspect is a black male in a white T-shirt running from QuikTrip, and has stolen a box of Swisher cigars.
11:57 a.m. (appx.) – 911 dispatcher announces more detail: suspect is wearing red Cardinals hat, white T-shirt, yellow socks and khaki shorts, and is accompanied by another man.
12:00 noon – Officer Wilson radios he’s back in service from the sick-baby call. He then asks the officers searching for the thieves – units 25 and 22 – if they need him. Seven seconds later, an unidentified officer broadcasts that the suspects had disappeared.
12:02 p.m. – Wilson radios “21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car.” Wilson’s call for backup results in multiple units to respond and drive toward area.
Sources have told the Post-Dispatch that Wilson has told authorities that before the radio call he had stopped to tell Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, 22, to quit walking down the middle of the street. They kept walking, and he then realized that Brown matched the description of the suspect in the stealing call.
Wilson then asked dispatch for backup and backed up his SUV next to Brown and Johnson.
Wilson said Brown attacked him, sources said, and that they struggled over the officer’s gun before Wilson was able to fire twice, hitting Brown once. Brown ran away.
Wilson has told authorities that he called, “Shots fired, send all cars,” on his radio, but during the struggle his radio had been jarred and the channel changed.
The Post-Dispatch reviewed radio calls made during that period on all St. Louis County police channels, the fire channel used by Ferguson and other channels publicly archived online and could not locate the call. At least one channel on the Ferguson police radio is “receive-only,” meaning that the call may not have been broadcast.
After the call, Wilson pursued Brown on foot.
According to sources, Wilson has said that Brown turned and charged, and that Wilson then fired once, paused when Brown appeared to flinch and fired again, multiple times. He said he then radioed for an ambulance.
Witnesses’ accounts vary widely. Most saw only part of the encounter.
Johnson said that Wilson grabbed Brown by the throat, and, later, tried to pull him into the SUV. Johnson also said that Wilson’s fatal shot came after Brown turned around and was getting to the ground with his hands in the air.
Other witnesses have said that Brown stood still or walked, staggered, stumbled or fell toward Wilson before he was killed. Some witnesses said Brown’s hands were up; others said they were not.
HELP ARRIVES
Forty-one seconds after Wilson’s call, unit 25 reported that he was about to arrive at Wilson’s location, saying he was “going out on Canfield” and accompanied by the sound of his racing engine.
Forty-eight seconds later, another officer had arrived or was about to, announcing, “22’s out.”
At 12:03 p.m., an eyewitness to the shooting Tweeted: If his smartphone’s clock, or Twitter’s agreed with the clock on dispatch records, Brown was killed less than 61 seconds after the dispatcher acknowledged that Wilson had stopped two men.
At 73 seconds after Wilson’s call an unidentified officer has arrived and asks “Where’s the other one?” referring to Dorian Johnson. (IMNM note: unlike many YouTube videos of police being murdered by suspects, this is PPP – proper police procedure. You arrive on a scene you quickly survey the situation and account for ALL suspects. Multiple officers have been killed when an unaccounted-for suspect gets the jump on all officers present. When arriving on scene you secure it immediately, which includes finding Johnson.)
Eleven seconds later, there’s a brief burst of static and an unintelligible bit of speech. A dispatcher responds, “10-4 on Canfield.”
Twenty seconds later, unit 25 radioed for a supervisor to Canfield and Copper Creek Court.
12:05, a dispatcher called for an ambulance, erroneously reporting that someone had been hit with a Taser. (IMNM: Remember the fraudulent meme Crump and crew spewed to media and on sites like The Daily Kos, one that did not get much traction: The police did not call for an ambulance, and they left Big Mike sitting in the street for over three hours.
12:07 p.m., As a woman is wailing in the background an Officer radios for additional units saying: “Get us several more units over here. There’s gonna be a problem.”
Pingback: Michael Brown: Eternal Martyr - Watcher of Weasels
Pingback: The Michael Brown Case, Update 19: The Wages of Martyrdom | Stately McDaniel Manor