I can’t find it either. If he’s using a revolver in 2014, that puts him in some kind of tiny minority of police officers, though.
(Yes, totally unscientific poll, but come on, who the hell carries a 6 shooter anymore?)
The person you cited said he didn’t have his hands up. I’m not sure where they’re getting that though – it’s not in the autopsy report, which is where you should be looking for contradictions if you parse my words literally.
“Probable cause” means “more likely than not”. It does not mean “reasonable amount of suspicion”.
That said, I don’t know that the standard for a GJ indictment is probable cause.
However, in general, the government is not supposed to prosecute people based on nothing more than reasonable suspicion. Fortunately.
He was shot in the back of the arm, which, barring advances in magic bullet technology, means his palms were facing inward, not towards the officer.
To say the track of ONE bullet through Brown’s arm shows he couldn’t have been surrendering AT ALL is spin. Pointing that out is not.
OK, so when that one bullet hit him, his hands weren’t up. How does that contradict the statement, “Michael Brown was shot with his hands up,” considering he was shot 6 times? That one bullet wound can’t possible tell us that much about the situation.
That’s just wrong.
But whatever definition you want to use, the point is “probably cause” is an extremely low standard. Which is why most Grand Jury inquiries looking for an indictment for a defendant usually issues one.
At least two of the shots that hit him happened when his hands weren’t up in surrender. And since I assume the shots were fired in rapid succession, it is somewhat less likely that Johnson meant Brown either surrendered after he was shot in the arm and hand, or surrendered, got shot, stopped surrendering, got shot some more, and then fell over and got shot in the head.
Or else Wilson is telling the truth, and Brown didn’t get shot in surrender because he didn’t surrender, just like we know Brown didn’t get shot in the back because none of the GSWs were in the back.
Regards,
Shodan
Your cite is consistent with what I wrote and is inconsistent with your position.
It’s really not low. The members of the grand jury have to believe that Wilson committed the crime in order to indict him. They don’t have to believe it beyond a reasonable doubt, but they still have to believe it. Just believing that it’s possible isn’t good enough. Reasonable suspicion and reasonable belief would be two lower standards.
If you say so. The point was the “more likely than not” definition is wrong. I think you were thinking of “preponderance of evidence” not “probably cause”.
A Grand Jury does NOT have to believe a defendant is guilty. They only have to believe there’s enough evidence to hold him/her over for trial. In fact, believing “it’s possible” is not only enough, but that’s really all that’s required of them.
You are right that I was confused with “preponderance of evidence”. My apologies.
That said, it does seem pretty clear that it’s a higher standard than “reasonable suspicion”.
How do you reach this conclusion given your definition of probable cause: “Apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused person has committed a crime”? (bolding mine) Or are you saying that grand juries do not use the probable cause standard?
They don’t have to believe the defendant is guilty. They only have to believe there’s probable cause to believe the defendant is guilty.
I think it’s worth reminding everything that grand juries aren’t like normal trials. The defense doesn’t present any evidence, and the rules of evidence for the prosecutor are more lax than at a normal trial. The state could, in theory present the following pieces of evidence, that:
a) Michael Brown was shot to death, with
b) Officer Wilson’s service weapon, and
c) Eye witnesses say he had his hands up in surrender
That’s it. Totally fine. The prosecution is under no obligation to present Darren Wilson’s side of the story, to argue that it was self defense, or to call Darren Wilson as a witness. So whatever standard of proof the grand jury is held to is somewhat irrelevant. If you were sitting on this grand jury and you heard 7 or 8 witnesses all tell basically the same story, that Michael Brown turned, surrendered, and was gunned down, would you not vote for a trial? I believe the legal standard is actually “preponderance of evidence,” and in the absence of any conflicting story, are you going to disregard all of that testimony?
Of course, that’s if the prosecutor wants a trial. Apparently Darren Wilson did testify, so who knows what’s going to come out of this, but quibbling over the legal standard is somewhat beside the point here.
If you are referring to the “7 or 8 eye witnesses” I cited, they agree with Wilson’s version of events, not Brown’s. If not, where are you getting this number from?
Let’s see, there’s the two teenage girls interviewed in this video. There’s Dorian Johnson. There’s the two white construction workers who were interviewed. From that same article, we have:
And also
So that’s 8 right there, by name except for the two construction workers.
On the other hand, your cite was an unnamed source from the Washington Post, who said 7 or 8 witnesses corroborated Wilson’s story, but didn’t name them or describe in what manner their testimony corroborated it.
Even if you believe your cite and accept that there are 7 or 8 people who could contradict the 8 people I just mentioned, my point is simply that the prosecutor is under no obligation to call them in any sort of trial, and in a grand jury the defense isn’t even present. If the prosecutor wanted 8 witnesses to testify that Brown was surrendering, I just named them.
Okay. That’s why I asked.
The liar who said Brown was shot in the back? You’re taking his word?