First, thanks to Sternoz for starting this string. Lots of stuff to go through and to try to play referee. My two cents, I agree with the basic outline of events Sternoz laid out but not with all the details. Two things that weren’t discussed too much here were the toxicology report on Brown,http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/evidence-michael-brown-was-high-pot-and-carrying-bTHC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) “seriously impairs judgment and motor coordination,” according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH).ag-it. It shows he had 2x the amount of THC that is allowed in states where it is legal. I cannot find the post but there was one that sort of said pot does not make you aggressive. I speculate had Brown shot Wilson at the squad this may had been used in his defence as an impairment. If you review the robbery video taken minutes before the encounter,- YouTube, you can see Brown grab the shopkeeper (half his size) by the throat and shove him back. He turns to go and then turns back aggressively and threatens the shopkeep again. Although Wilson did not know this , I think it speaks to Brown’s state of mind and attitude at the time.
1: Brown was never in control of the firearm, so he could not shoot Wilson.
More importantly,
2: Voluntary intoxication is not a defense.
CMC fnord!
serious impairment of motor coordination? Judgement and concentration maybe, but coordination? I’ve listened to a fair number of stoned musicians and I’m going to disagree with you on this.
As to Brown’s state of mind he wasn’t just walking down the middle of the street he did not get out of the way of traffic. According to Wilson cars drove around the pair. His entire persona at this point is aggressive. Most people will walk to the side to let cars pass.
Wilson’s account of what happened in the car was fairly detailed and consistent with forensic evidence. And when I say consistent that doesn’t mean proof, just consistent. He said he contemplated mace (on his right side) but could not get to it and thought it harmful to himself if used in the car. If it were me I would have put the car in gear and dragged Brown until he let go of the gun. If the vehicle was moving it would have forced Brown to brace himself with both hands to avoid an uncontrolled dragging.
Brown had hold of the gun and was able to leverage the gun into Wilson’s hip. So it’s a bit of a stretch to say he could not shoot Wilson when it was a struggle for control. The struggle is a life or death threat to Wilson and exponentially ramps up everything that follows.
Not as long as up to three of them can disagree. Whether they share that opinion or not, it is thus possible for there to be more than one opinion held. A singular opinion is only possible if decisions are unanimous.
If steronz’s version of events is correct, I would still have liked to see disciplinary actions taken on the officer. It doesn’t sound like murder, but it does sound like something that should be legally discouraged.
So I am happy that the guy cannot just return back to work like nothing happened.
Who’s finger was in control of the trigger the entire time?
CMC fnord!
Realistically, nobody’s. Both had their finger on the trigger and the gun was being wrenched around. it takes 5 lbs of force to fire it.
If one simply decides to believe one version of the incident.
+1
The biggest problem I have with this speculation is that not only was Browns DNA on the gun, it misfired in a patten that suggests it was out of battery.
I’m having a hard time seeing a scenario where brown didn’t have his hand on the slide at some point. And that would change the scenario dramatically for me.
Yes, if we choose to believe the version of the incident supported by the evidence, rather than the one someone is imagining based on nothing whatsoever.
absent evidence to the contrary that’s what a jury is left with.
If Wilson says there was a struggle for the gun and fired 2 shots and the evidence shows a gun discharged inside the car then his statement stands without evidence to the contrary.
If he says he was standing in a certain location in the street when he fired then it’s verifiable because one of the bullets hit a hand rail and then an exterior house wall. It draws a line at least to that one shot.
At the end of the day it’s not all going to be conveniently verifiable unless someone recorded it. But it goes back to proving it happened differently than the officer claimed since he is the focus of the claims of improper behavior.
I think Brown’s father is spot on when he says all officers should have body cams.
Nonsense. His statement is his statement. If there is no other evidence, it can still be evaluated and disregarded.
However, there is evidence to the contrary. Johnson says Brown did not grab the gun. Other witnesses also say Brown did not reach into the vehicle.
Absolutely.
Johnson said that Brown was shot in the back, correct? Since we know from the autopsy that this is not correct, it would seem that Johnson’s statement can be evaluated and disregarded.
Likewise, the evidence shows shots were fired inside the vehicle. Therefore the statements of those witnesses who say Brown did not reach into the vehicle can be evaluated and disregarded. So, apart from statements that you and I agree ought to be disregarded, what evidence is there to the contrary?
Regards,
Shodan
Another reasonable scenario is that Brown reached for the gun after Wilson pulled it to prevent Wilson from using it on him. His other option would have been hoping to outrun a bullet.
To take Wilson’s testimony at face value is invalid. The same would be true of Brown’s testimony, if such a thing were possible.
Personally, I lean to a scenario of mutually provoked panic. Wilson thought “This huge black demon is going to kill me with his bare hands!”. Brown thought “This crazy cracker cop is going to shoot me!”. Both can be deemed equally likely since Brown did have hands, and Wilson did have a gun.
This post by Steronz indicates that we can’t rule out that one of the shots that hit Brown may have come from behind.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17934397&postcount=212
although this does seem, on balance unlikely.
Just to be clear, do you think it is either wise or correct to do such a thing?
If a cop pulls a gun on someone, and that someone tries to grab that gun, for whatever reason, I don’t think we can fault the cop for shooting. So, if that’s a “reasonable” scenario, then it would seem the GJ got things right.
I don’t think there was ever any real doubt that the GJ would not indict, if for no other reason than the fact that it takes nine of the twelve to do so.
Which brings up what may be a stupid question but: if four of the GJ voted for first-degree thugslaughter, and five voted for second degree, would that produce an indictment, or would that issue have to be negotiated?
As crowmanyclouds points out, the Tueller Drill is for a holstered weapon and a knife, not a charging man and a gun drawn. I really don’t know what distance I’d open fire at, which is why I said I don’t know what the answer is. I just feel that 40-45 feet is too far in that situation.
I included it in the section called “The Chase.” This is the least described section of the encounter, but by most accounts Wilson either said nothing at all the entire time, or he said “Stop!” repeatedly while Brown was still running away. My conclusion is that he probably did indeed order Brown to stop, but once Brown stopped and turned, there’s not really any time in the narrative for Wilson to issue commands before he starts firing. Wilson himself in his statement doesn’t mention issuing any commands at that point, and I don’t think any witnesses testified to that effect. But like I said, I do think he shouted “Stop!” at a fleeing Brown, just because enough credible witnesses said they heard it.
There’s no doubt that Brown was behaving aggressively that day. I don’t think it was because of the weed. The jury asked the toxicologist if the weed might have made him aggressive, and he pretty much said no. I mean, I’ve been high as hell before and it’s never made me want to do anything but eat delicious food and get laid.
There’s no evidence that Brown had his finger on the trigger. I think it’s likely that the gun didn’t fire because Brown’s hand was impeding the hammer, or he was pushing back on the slide to take it out of battery. Wilson was trying to fire it, and on the third trigger pull he succeeded, according to his statement. But I don’t really think Brown had contorted his giant fingers anywhere near the trigger.
I believe I included this in my version of events. I do indeed believe that Brown’s hand was on the gun. There’s no physical evidence of this, but I’m willing to believe Wilson on this one. I don’t think he was trying to take the gun away, though, just pushing it down out of the way.
Several credible witnesses did see Brown reach into the vehicle. A lot, actually. Johnson says Brown’s arm was pulled in, but he’s 5’ 6" and it’s a frickin’ Tahoe, so I’m not sure how much he could have really seen going on in there. We know Brown’s hand was in the car because of the DNA evidence and the trajectory of the first bullet (gun, Brown’s hand, interior door panel, shattered glass, etc). In terms of what happened with the gun, like whether or not Brown was reaching for it, putting his hand on it, smashing it into Wilson’s thigh, or trying to take it away, all we really have to go on is Wilson’s testimony and our own speculation.
Like eburacum45 said, none of the forensic pathologists would ultimately rule out a back shot because of the mobility of the human arm. Furthermore, lots of witnesses describe the same thing, credible witnesses, including the decidedly pro-Wilson Witness 10. As I described in the narrative, my personal opinion is that Brown stepped on something sharp and flinched, and people mistook that for a hit and then shortened the exact timeline of shots. But we can’t 100% rule it out.
Also, I think it’s important that even if we know one sentence of a witness’ statement is false, we can’t throw out their statement entirely, as some people are wont to do. “Dorian Johnson is a liar so we can ignore what he said entirely” is not a fair assessment, especially given how many crucial details he does fill in which fit with the narrative. We don’t have to believe everything he said, either because we believe he was sometimes lying or sometimes mistaken, but other than a few things he came off as very credible on the stand.
Erm, I’m in agreement with John Mace, that even if a cop pulls a gun on you you’re not generally allowed to think, “Oh shit he’s going to shoot me so I’m allowed to fight back.” I think Brown did reach for the gun, maybe instinctively, to push it out of the way, but he damn well shouldn’t have. That’s just not what you do, especially if you know damn well that the cop has a good reason to be arresting you.
Yes, that would have produced an indictment. It was in the instructions to the grand jury in Volume 24.
I might very well have reached the conclusion that I would prefer to be alive and argue the legal points from that situation. YMMV.