They’re bound to release it to the defence, but as I understand it the defence don’t usually appear at the Grand Jury.
Hopefully someone who knows more about them will be able to clarify, but I think the point of a Grand Jury is to decide whether the incriminating evidence on its own would be enough to justify a trial - that is, basically, that there’s at least some evidence that every element of a crime was in fact committed by the suspect.
That’s for a TRIAL jury to decide, not a grand jury. And let’s not confuse Wilson having “fear of death or serious injury” with him being just plain pissed off that Brown punched him in the face. A reasonable person could do BOTH.
OCT. 17, 2014 - *The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.
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.
…The account of Officer Wilson’s version of events did not come from the Ferguson Police Department or from officials whose activities are being investigated as part of the civil rights inquiry.
…However, Mr. Johnson’s description of the scuffle is detailed and specific, and directly contradicts what Officer Wilson has told the authorities.
…The officials briefed on the case said the forensic evidence gathered in the car lent credence to Officer Wilson’s version of events.*
Dorian Johnson, the witness to both the strong-armed robbery committed minutes early by Brown and to Brown’s “not” reaching into the police vehicle, originally said that Brown was shot in the back while running away from Wilson. Forensic evidence shows Brown was shot in the arm while his arm was in the police vehicle and that the shots fired from outside of the police vehicle struck Brown while he was facing the officer.
Correct, except that it’s “probable cause,” not simply “some evidence,” that must support the grand jury’s true bill.
It would be interesting to see how Johnson explains Wilson’s injuries, if they weren’t inflicted by Brown. That, along with the forensic evidence that Brown was close enough to the car and the gun to bleed on it, show that it is at least plausible that Brown was attacking Wilson, and disprove claims that he was 30 feet away when shot.
You guys are really great at reading for comprehension.
Yes, the evidence described in the story does show that it was plausible that Brown attacked Wilson.
From what we read in that article, though, the evidence might also be consistent with the witness’s claim that the officer grabbed Brown and tried to pull him towards and into the car.
As MOIDALIZE suggests, you might want to read the article a bit more closely and maybe pay attention to it this time.
It makes clear that two shots were fired in the car (one hit Brown, and one missed), and that the officer then “emerged from his vehicle, [and] fired at Mr. Brown multiple times.” None of this disproves the assertion that Brown was some distance away when he was shot. After the struggle, he might have pulled away and moved away from the car, after which the officer emerged and fired his weapon.
I have, in this thread and in others on the subject, taken no position on whose account of this incident is correct. I wanted to wait for all the evidence and all the testimony before making an evaluation. And i’m still waiting, and still reserving judgment both of Brown and of the cop. But if you ARE going to weigh in, you could at least base your discussion on a complete and honest assessment of the evidence that we have.
Problem is that that claim seems ludicrous on its face.
Why in the world would anyone grab someone, especially someone the size of Michael Brown, and try to pull them down on top of themselves is a confined space the size of a car’s front seat?
I’m not sure if this is any less plausible than a large, unarmed 18 year old charging a cop.
This is my first foray in this thread because I haven’t had the time to be up on all the alleged facts.
That’s just as believable to me as Wilson’s claim of Brown reaching into his car to grab his gun.
I read the article about Brown’s blood and I don’t understand how it implicates Brown. We already know he was shot at close range to both the gun and the car, so it isn’t a surprise his blood was found on both.
A very large, unarmed 18 year old, who still had stolen cigars in his possession from the strong-arm robbery he had just committed minutes earlier. Maybe Brown didn’t want to be arrested and sent to jail for throwing the store clerk into the display shelves? What’s one more act of violence when you’ve attacked a store clerk in a store and a cop in his vehicle?
Eyewitness Johnson’s story has changed several times. Forensic evidence trumps Johnson’s versions. The FBI canvased the area and I suspect there are a lot more witnesses than the five eyewitness mentioned up thread by JesterX.
There’s a difference between something that is stupid and something that is pointless.
I agree that charging a cop is a dumb idea. But people do dumb things. It’s not hard to understand what Brown would have been trying to accomplish in charging the cop, foolish as it may have been.
By contrast, Wilson pulling Brown down on top of himself seems completely pointless. What might he have been trying to do, if he was completely successful at it?
Forensic evidence suggests that Brown’s arm was inside the police vehicle when Brown was shot.
Whatever.
As i said, i’m reserving my judgment on the circumstances, and i make no assertion either way about whether or not the cop did this, or whether or not the witness is lying. I simply noted that the forensic evidence does not contradict that particular claim made by the witness.
If you’re going to engage in hypothetical, i could imagine a scenario where a police officer drives up next to a person walking on the road and tells him to stop, and when he refuses to stop, the cop grabs him by the arm.
I’m not saying that’s what happened, because i don’t know. But if you’re going to respond to my very limited and specific assertions with non sequiturs, then i might as well provide you with something more speculative to complain about.
Which would be very different from trying to pull him into the car.
In a physical struggle, people do all kinds of things that might, with further thought, seem pointless. Physical struggles are inherently chaotic and provide virtually zero time to think through one’s actions.
Agreed. I’m certainly not ready to convict Wilson and think we should wait to see if the Grand Jury thinks this warrants a trial and what evidence is presented at the trial, but if Brown really did decide to lower his head and charge at an injured, angry cop pointing a gun at him then was suicidally stupid and should be considered for a Darwin Award.
Maybe. Depends what the next step was.
As i said, i don’t know. I leave the wild speculation impelled by prejudice to people like you.
The results of the official autopsy are leaked, supposedly.
Nothing earth-shattering. Brown had been smoking grass (how surprising), he was clearly not shot from behind. and the initial shots back up Wilson’s story of a struggle in the car.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that the grand jury does not indict the officer.
ETA: …and that more rioting will ensue.