Twice???
Not only that. The first volley was 2 seconds long. Which means that in order to be hit in front by the “tail end” of it, Brown had to stop running and turn around within 1 second. Try running, see how long it will take you to stop and turn around.
And this is assuming that the last 2 shots of the first burst were the ones that hit. Maybe it was the first two. So Brown starts running away, turns back, get hit twice, turns away again, Wilson misses four more times, then Brown turns back, Wilson pauses for 2 or 3 seconds, and then fires four more times, all hits. Brown could have whirling like a dervish.
Regards,
Shodan
He’d have to have been twisting and turning more even than those trying to argue for Wilson’s guilt.
Regards,
Shodan
Police chase suspected criminals. Police chase thieves. Police chase people who punch police officers. It’s kinda what they do.
Brown was threatening and intimidating but that doesn’t mean Wilson isn’t going to do his job. You may have previously noticed that when civilians are usually run FROM dangerous situations, police officers are running TOWARDS dangerous situations.
Wilson attempted to apprehend (aka tackle him and wrestle him to the ground and cuff him) Brown because Brown attacked Wilson and Wilson suspected Brown of robbing the store. If Wilson had always intended to shoot Brown, then there would have been no reason for Wilson to leave the immediate vicinity of his vehicle. And Wilson could have used the vehicle to steady his aim.
Wilson chased Brown because Wilson intended to detain and arrest Brown.
Looks like it really does come down to one’s trust in the system and the people who run it. That’s a pretty fundamental difference that I don’t think this one thread and incident will resolve. It’ll proba scar over in history, and that’s kind of sad.
Or one’s ability to look at facts objectively and discover that it would be impossible to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don’t care if you hate the police or love the police, but there is little to no doubt, given the controversy over the facts, there is no way this case could or should ever result in a conviction.
ISTM that these two sententences negate each other. Because if you “hate the police” (or love the police, FTM) then you might not have the “ability to look at facts objectively”.
But beyond that, it’s not just the emotional “hate the police”. If your assessment of the police is a highly negative one, then you will be inclined to interpret their actions in the worst possible light, not because you hate them but because that’s the most reasonable interpretation of their actions given your starting premise.
I think a similar phenomenon was at play in the OJ case and others of this sort.
That and the main filter for the “facts,” especially those favorable to Wilson, is through the police.
An aside: how do folks here who saw the interview interpret Wilson’s attitude towards the events of the night in question? Not the rightness of them, but the fact of them.
I just thought of what I think on first blush is a good analogy: the way African-Americans tend to look at the police is similar to how conservatives look at the government.
As to the question of whether it would have been better not to take it to the grand jury in the first place–I think (but correct me if I’m wrong) another option would have been to bring in an outsider to make the decision, someone not socially connected to the situation. That might have been better. Of course this invites the question of what that person should have done had this option been pursued. Probably just indict or not indict, no grand jury necessary in this case.
If bringing in an outside prosecutor isn’t an option, then giving it to the grand jury was the best he could do, but I’d insist that in that situation he should have made the best case. I honestly don’t really care how much money this would have cost. (I mean I’m sure there are amounts of money and budgetary facts that you could give me that would make me change my mind. I doubt the actual facts are ones that would accomplish that, but surprises happen all the time.) Darrin Wilson would have to go through a lot of misfortune, that’s for sure, but I’ve addressed that point above. (Someone, in response to that, brought up a concern that this gives prosecutors leeway to harass people for bad reasons, but to be clear, I’m talking about the ethics of this particular situation, and that in terms of consequences. While there’s sure to be some principle or other I’m implicitly advocating here, what’s not being proposed here is any kind of codified rule of conduct.) I don’t think that what the prosecutor did, or anyway, how he did it, succeeds in doing what you suggested, i.e., making him genuinely appear not to be the sole decision maker, since as has been well-argued in various places by people who know how these things work, the way he did it seemed intentionally arranged to produce his desired result. (Indeed if I understood you correctly, you suggested this yourself.)
I think it is possible to distrust the police and still be objective, just as it is possible to distrust any defendant and still be objective.
The grand jury heard from the witnesses directly. There was no “through the police”.
And prosecutors. Sorry, I forgot them, especially with all the accusations of soft pedaling and coziness with the force on the part of the office.
(No matter what your opinion of them is, the fact is that they are part of a lot of the outrage, so I should’ve included them. Not to mention, who gathered all the evidence the prosecutors put before the grand jury?)
So, you, in that situation, would advocate for hiding relevant evidence from the grand jury, including not allowing the defendant to testify, not putting in the forensic evidence that supports his statements, and only calling witnesses (and not impeaching them) who say things that make your case better?
And then spend time, money, and goodwill to prosecute someone who has little to no chance of ever being convicted, especially after the defense counsel points out repeatedly how much you hid from the grand jury?
I don’t think that is wise.
Let me ask. Do you think it is possible, given the facts presented the grand jury, to prove Officer Wilson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
Just so there are no “gotchas” later on, I ask because if you do, I think you’re sorely, sorely mistaken, and I do not see the benefit of going any further in this discussion. Given the burden the government would have to meet to prove the case and the conflicting evidence, impeachable witnesses, and the forensic evidence, I think it’s all but impossible to convict him based solely on the evidence (he could, of course, be convicted for being unliked by the jury).
If you agree with most people and myself that it is highly, highly unlikely, with this evidence, to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, I think it would be unconscionable to go forward with the prosecution.
It’s my understanding that that’s the norm, and not considered a breach. Is this not so?
Was there an option to bring in someone from the outside, with expertise, to make the decision? If not, then I don’t see the problem with doing what you just described. Again: I’m not at all alive to the money, time or goodwill issues. I’m not prepared to do the calculations on that–I’d need to know a whole lot more than I do about the numbers involved, the norms that apply, etc, and anyway it seems implausible to me that the actual numbers would be such as to be rational mind-changers here. Besides I don’t think that’s really where your argument intends to hang its hat, is it?
I think the main issue you’re really worried about is the “little to no chance of ever being convicted” part, and I also think there may be background information about what prosecutors believe they are supposed to do about that which I’m not familiar with. If I’m reading some of the things you’ve said correctly, it’s actually considered a breach of ethics to indict someone when you think they probably won’t be convicted. Is that correct?
For cases that you think have very little to no chance of resulting in a guilty verdict? I don’t think that’s the norm. The norm for those cases are they simply aren’t filed.
Yes, which is why I asked you for your opinion.
But when they are filed, it’s the norm, right? (Or not?)
I can’t speak to the professional ethical question, and to be clear, when I’ve been talking about what the prosecutor should have done, I have been speaking from a consequentialist point of view. (By which I don’t mean “I’m a consequentialist” but rather, that consequence-centered considerations are what I have mostly had in mind). As such, I recognize I may be advocating for an action that constitutes a breach of professional ethics. I don’t know enough about the professional ethics to have an opinion as to what they demand in this case. Sometimes, though, human ethics trump professional ones. This may be such a case.
The norm is that cases like this, with little to no chance of getting a guilty verdict, and your own personal opinion is that he’s not guilty, is that they don’t get filed. You want to compare the case to the cases where there is a great chance of conviction and the burden to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt can be met, but those cases are simply not analogous.
I’m trying to get to your opinion of the evidence. Do you think it is possible to prove Officer Wilson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when all the evidence presented to the Grand Jury is considered?
I appreciate that you are aware of the prosecutor’s ethics. I am, however, concerned with your apparent willingness to prosecute a case that you would have no chance of winning. To me, the harm in prosecuting a very likely not guilty person by putting them through a sham of a trial would outweigh any possible benefit of appeasing people who likely are not going to change their mind at all.