Because we don’t know what happened, but we need to consider what’s more likely. And if a guy is just walking down the street minding his own business, that makes it less likely that he would just assault a cop who stopped him. But if the guy had just robbed a store, it’s more likely that that’s how it went down. (I never understood to begin with the part about the cop trying to pull him into the cop car on top of himself.)
And it turns out that his main witness and pal was apparently part of the robbery too.
So it’s a very very different story.
Despite that, if the cop shot him in the back at some distance he has what to answer for.
I tend to agree with you on all these points. Even if the cop was contacting Brown in connection with the robbery, it doesn’t change the fact that multiple witnesses have said Brown was surrendering when he was fatally shot.
Nor does the fact that Brown was wanted in connection with the robbery justify the crazy tactics the Ferguson cops used in response to the protests.
ETA: It wasn’t just Brown’s friend who said Brown was shot while surrendering. Other witnesses not connected with the two have said the same thing.
Weirdly, I would have said the opposite. Someone that had just committed a crime, to my mind, would want to avoid any kind of confrontation with the police as much as possible.
This may well turn out to be true, but there may be less to the “multiple witnesses” than appears at first glance, IMO.
From what I’ve read, these witnesses have been reluctant to discuss things with the police, and their testimony has been given to media outlets. And they are presumably aware of what the others have said. And this is a highly charged issue at this point. Let’s see what they say - and how well they hold up - under oath and facing cross examination.
What’s more important IMO is what the coroner and forensic analysis say.
I think a lot turns on whether he was packing with his other hand. He says in the video that he was and the officer doesn’t seem to disagree. He also says so in his account of the incident. And, indeed, he obviously did get packed up and leave all in under a minute.
If that’s right, then the question is whether he should have packed more quickly. And that’s where I think some concrete order must be given in order to arrest him, if it is not otherwise clear from the circumstances that there is some necessity of haste.
Agree that this is the bigger question. I see circumstantial evidence that there was no unlawful assembly (it was still daylight, the McDonalds had just been open prior to this, etc.), so in the absence of other evidence I think our conditional conclusion should be that the order was improper. But I’m open to someone showing that around this time a violence crowd had assembled outside.
That’s not how it works, IME. The guy would obviously want to avoid all contact with the police. But once the guy stopped him, he didn’t want to get seized, so he did what he needed to get away.
There was a case of in NJ a few years ago. A cop stopped a guy walking and called him over to his car. Guy was wanted for various crimes. He pulled out a gun and shot him in the head.
The police didn’t interview anyone for several days. Brown’s friend had to get a lawyer and pressure the cops to take a statement from him. The cops initially showed little interest in investigating this. Then, once they brought the heavy weapons out, any remaining chance of cooperation from the locals went down the shitter
No one finds it interesting that in dozens of interviews Brown’s friend has given to the press, not one mention was made of the robbery that Brown and Johnson committed immediately before the incident?
Clearly, you have to review that matter with respect to the totality of the circumstances, not by means of a stopwatch. I get your point, but I’m thinking your mathematical approach leaves far too many doors open. It’s a judgment call, and we know who’s judgment makes the call.
In the one case I can find construing this statute, the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a conviction where the accused left, but then returned later, and was arrested without any subsequent warnings. The court said, “By regrouping, defendant in effect refused to obey the lawful command of Callow to depart from the scene of the unlawful assembly.” The court’s use of “in effect,” signals that the court recognizes that the accused initially obeyed the command, but then returned, making his refusal constructive.
The accused in that case raised the defense that order was not specific enough – that it didn’t actually forbid returning after leaving. The court did not agree that such specificity was needed. In fact, the actual words used in that case were simply, “Break it up.” The court said:
In this case, the officer says twice to hurry up (0:08 and 0:11) and then says they are down to about 45 seconds left (0:17). If “break it up,” with nothing more, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for a guy that actually leaves and then returns, then repeated invocations of “Get your stuff and let’s go,” (0:01); “Let’s grab our stuff and go,” (0:05); and “We’re down to about forty-five seconds,” (0:17); and a half-dozen more commands to leave certainly are enough to sustain probable cause.
Why doesn’t the officer’s “We’re down to about forty-five seconds,” qualify?
The whole “wanted for various crimes” seems to be a big difference between the two examples. The soon-to-be-cop-killer, from your cites, actively believed that he was about to be arrested prior to any contact, and knew that his crimes were known. That’s not something you could say for Brown.
I don’t know how bright Brown was, but if you rob a store and 10 minutes later get pulled over on the street by a cop, it’s not too hard to figure out what he wants you for.