Image 01 Image 03

Ferguson Tag

The shooting in Ferguson MO of robbery suspect Mike Brown by Police Officer Darren Wilson has raised a myriad of social, racial, and legal issues.  In this post I'd like to address one of the latter, specifically whether under Missouri law Wilson was authorized to use deadly force to arrest a fleeing Brown in the absence of Brown representing imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm to an innocent. (The presence of such a threat would have justified Wilson's use of deadly force under self-defense and defense of others grounds, which are outside the scope of this post.) This issue was very well addressed by Robert VerBruggen in his August 16th Real Clear Policy post entitled "Missouri's Rule on Deadly Force by Cops,"  which was brought to my attention a few days after publication, and which I encourage you to read.  I offer here a more in-depth discussion of the same issues, and reach the same conclusion.

MRS §563.046: Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest

In this context much has been made in the press by "journalists" who have stumbled across Missouri Revised Statute §563.046 is entitled "Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest."  It provides, in relevant part, that:

3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only (emphasis added)

. . .

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony (emphasis added); or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

The Washington Post has convicted Police Officer Darren Wilson, who shot Michael Brown, of guilt by association with a former troubled police force in a different town in a prior job than the one he held in Ferguson, MO, and of having parents who were in trouble with the law. Seriously. There is nothing, zero, nada, in the WaPo story linked below that shows Darren Wilson ever did anything wrong himself. In fact, to the extent his own conduct is even mentioned, it's in the context of staying out of trouble. But that does not stop WaPo from trashing Wilson by association. WaPo Darren Wilson first job troubled police department Here's an excerpt on that prior police department from Darren Wilson’s first job was on a troubled police force disbanded by authorities:
The small city of Jennings, Mo., had a police department so troubled, and with so much tension between white officers and black residents, that the city council finally decided to disband it. Everyone in the Jennings police department was fired. New officers were brought in to create a credible department from scratch. That was three years ago. One of the officers who worked in that department, and lost his job along with everyone else, was a young man named Darren Wilson. Some of the Jennings officers reapplied for their jobs, but Wilson got a job in the police department in the nearby city of Ferguson.....

At The New Republic, author Yishai Schwartz argues that "Convicting Darren Wilson Will Be Basically Impossible" because of the presumption of innocence mixed with race and Missouri self-defense law :
We may never know what actually happened during the violent encounter between teenager Michael Brown and policeman Darren Wilson. But legal judgments rarely happen with perfect knowledge and absolute certainty. In their place, we rely on presumptions and standards that guide our thinking and discipline our judgments. In general, we presume innocence. But when we know that a killing has occurred and can definitively identify who committed the act, traditional common law demanded that our presumptions shift. We are supposed to presume guilt, and it is the shooter who must prove that his actions were justified. Unless the shooter is a policeman. And unless the victim is a black male. And unless the shooting happens in a state with self-defense laws like Missouri.
So, let's take a look, shall we?
In general, we presume innocence.
Indeed, in criminal prosecutions we presume innocence.  This is entirely consistent with the liberal tradition that it is “Better that 10 guilty killers go free than one person who killed in proper self-defense go to prison for a long time (or be executed)," to quote Eugene Volokh's column linked in the embedded quote above. Certainly, it is possible to imagine a criminal justice system in which one is presumed guilty. I expect that most people--particularly those who are the victims of systematic social injustice--would find such a system not to their liking. We'll get back to that later.

The latest developments, a growing list, feel free to add more in the comments: NY Times, Missouri National Guard to Withdraw From Ferguson as Tensions Ease:
As tensions on the streets here seemed to ease on Thursday, Gov. Jay Nixon ordered the Missouri National Guard to begin withdrawing from the city. “I greatly appreciate the men and women of the Missouri National Guard for successfully carrying out the specific, limited mission of protecting the Unified Command Center so that law enforcement officers could focus on the important work of increasing communication within the community, restoring trust, and protecting the people and property of Ferguson,” Mr. Nixon said in a statement. He said that order in the city had been largely restored and that the presence of the National Guard was no longer needed.
Is the Trayvon case really the prototype to use? Well, maybe, if you want a prototype of a rush to judgment based on inflammatory racial accusations that had no basis in evidence: Even WaPo now is reporting on the alleged eye socket fracture to the police officer:

Fox News is reporting that police officer Darren Wilson was severely beaten by Michael Brown during the confrontation that ended with Brown's death:
Darren Wilson, the Ferguson, Mo., police officer whose fatal shooting of Michael Brown touched off more than a week of demonstrations, suffered severe facial injuries, including an orbital (eye socket) fracture, and was nearly beaten unconscious by Brown moments before firing his gun, a source close to the department's top brass told FoxNews.com. “The Assistant (Police) Chief took him to the hospital, his face all swollen on one side,” said the insider. “He was beaten very severely.”... The source also said the dashboard and body cameras, which might have recorded crucial evidence, had been ordered by Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson, but had only recently arrived and had not yet been deployed.
Too bad about those cameras; what poor timing. The article also says that St. Louis County police, now in charge of the investigation, have refused to confirm or deny the story. They say they will present all the evidence to a grand jury when the time comes.

Attorney General Eric Holder is meeting with law enforcement and civil rights leaders in Ferguson, Missouri today in an attempt to ease racial tensions in the St. Louis Metro area. It's unclear, however whether Holder's presence will calm the violence, or make things more difficult for local and state law enforcement:
Justice Department officials say the unusually aggressive federal intervention is justified by the continuing violence and apparent mishandling of the case by local officials, who have been criticized for displaying excessive force against protesters and moving too slowly to investigate the Aug. 9 shooting. But law enforcement officials and other experts could not recall another instance in which Washington pushed ahead with a federal civil rights case as it has in Ferguson, almost elbowing state officials out of the way.
Fortunately for America, Holder also took time out of his busy schedule to get in on a selfie: Holder has also encouraged local civil rights leaders and advocates to promote a more federal-centric approach to resolving the crisis in Ferguson.
In a sign that Holder's campaign is gaining traction in the area, a group of African American lawyers held a news conference Tuesday in front of the St. Louis County courthouse, calling on local prosecutor Robert McCulloch to recuse himself. They said the federal investigation should proceed first because McCulloch appears to be "emotionally invested in protecting law enforcement." Yet with all of Holder's determination, the reality is that state prosecutions almost always go first and that a federal civil rights case could be harder to build and win than a state case involving a charge of murder or manslaughter.

The fatal shooting of the Mike Brown by police officer Darren Wilson has raised a hue and cry about a wide variety of social issues, among them the increasingly vitriolic nature of American race relations, the astonishing militarization of the police (or, perhaps more accurately, their equipment), and the curious (to me, at least) degree to which the rioting, looting, and arson that followed the shooting was rationalized as “wrong, but understandable.” [caption id="attachment_96650" align="alignnone" width="450"]Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson[/caption]

A Too-Familiar Misinformation Cascade

This most recent high-profile shooting has also seen the deployment of a too-familiar misinformation cascade in cases where there is a real or perceived racial element.  This misinformation cascade achieves its purpose by taking what few “facts” are typically available in the immediate aftermath of such an event, and passing them through a rhetorical filter to construct two defining narrative elements:

The pure victim: An image of the victim as an innocent, nearly saint-like, young child of such tender years as to suggest that the very notion of him committing an act of malice is preposterous.

The monstrous aggressor: An image of the shooter as an angry, hateful, racist monster with a hunger for shooting young black children dead in circumstances totally absent of legal justification.

The Misinformation Cascade in the Zimmerman/Trayvon Case

In the case of the shooting of Trayvon Martin by the "White Hispanic" George Zimmerman, these dual goals were accomplished in several ways.

According to the preliminary report from the autopsy requested by the Michael Brown family, Brown was shot six times, four in the right arm and two in the head, the last head shot killing him. All of the shots entered from the front. These findings could end up being revised, but so far the forensic evidence contradicts the reports of several eyewitnesses who reported that at least some shots were fired from behind as Brown was fleeing. One of those witnesses, Dorian Johnson, had reason to lie, since he was Brown's friend and it was later revealed that he had been present at the time of the convenience store robbery that preceded the confrontation with Officer Wilson. Eyewitness testimony is prized by the public but is often extremely flawed. It is unnecessary to allege eyewitness bias in this case in order to doubt the reliability of the eyewitnesses: study upon study has demonstrated how poor eyewitness testimony often tends to be. Here's an interesting point about focus that's relevant to the Brown shooting:
The weapon focus effect suggests that the presence of a weapon narrows a person's attention, thus affects eyewitness memory. A person focuses on the central detail (for example, the weapon) and loses focus on the peripheral details (for example, the perpetrator's characteristics). While the weapon is remembered clearly, the memories of the other details of the scene suffer...Another hypothesis is that seeing a weapon might cause an aroused state. In an aroused state, people focus on central details instead of peripheral ones.
That's not the only focus problem. There's more:

Things have moved so fast in the shooting of Michael Brown and the subsequent riots, that it's hard to keep pace. Andrew likely will have a post later with some legal analysis, but for now I'm just going to post some links, and readers can update in the comments. Does this make it more likely Brown was charging at or engaging the police officer at the time of the shooting? Autopsy Shows Michael Brown Was Struck at Least 6 Times:
Michael Brown, the unarmed black teenager who was killed by a police officer, sparking protests around the nation, was shot at least six times, including twice in the head, a preliminary private autopsy performed on Sunday found. One of the bullets entered the top of Mr. Brown’s skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when it struck him and caused a fatal injury, according to Dr. Michael M. Baden, the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York, who flew to Missouri on Sunday at the family’s request to conduct the separate autopsy. It was likely the last of bullets to hit him, he said. Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm, he said, adding that all the bullets were fired into his front.
Chaos, violence in Ferguson; National Guard called in:

Almost a week later, it looks we finally know what happened in Ferguson, Missouri last Saturday. At a press conference this morning, police identified the Darren Wilson as the officer who fatally shot unarmed teen, Michael Brown: What police revealed today is different from the account given by Dorin Johnson who claimed he was present at the time Brown was shot. Johnson indicated he and Brown were minding their own business when Officer Wilson rolled up and began to harass them. Officer Wilson has no disciplinary record in the six years he's been on the force. According to St. Louis police, Brown and Johnson were suspects in a convenience store robbery that happened moments before Officer Wilson encountered the two. NBC News reports:

What a nightmare Ferguson has become. Five days after the fatal shooting of unarmed teen, Michael Brown, and there's still no consensus as to what actually happened. If you're just jumping into this story, check out previous posts here and here.

Dorin Johnson's Attorney

Yesterday I mentioned that the St. Louis Police who are handling the Ferguson cluster, have not yet interviewed Dorin Johnson, who claims he was with Michael Brown when Brown was gunned down by law enforcement Saturday. Johnson appeared on MSNBC in an interview with Chris Hayes, accompanied by his lawyer, Freeman Bosley, Jr. Bosley is an interesting character himself. The former St. Louis mayer seems to have a checkered past, with "ethics violations" being a reoccurring theme. Last year, Bosley sent fundraising letters soliciting donations to cover his daughter's college tuition. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported, "Bosley said his daughter worked hard to finish in the top two percent of her graduating class at St. Elizabeth Academy. He said she deserves to go to a private school." When the odd fundraising request was brought to light, Bosley vowed to return any donations received. Earlier this year, the board governing Missouri lawyers moved to suspend Bosley's law license for two years. The list is a pretty great read. Misuse of client funds and malpractice make appearances more than once.

St. Louis Police Department Hacked by Anonymous 

Originally, the St. Louis Police Department planned to release the name of the law enforcement officer who shot and killed Brown. As violence escalated, SLPD opted not to release the identity of the officer in order to protect him. So Anonymous, the infamous hacking conglom got involved and called for a "Day of Rage," because that's helpful. According to CNN, Anonymous has the name of the officer, but CNN refused to announce the officer's name on air.

Should The Public be Privy to the Officer's Name?

Kevin Williamson at National Review has an interesting take on this question:

The situation in Ferguson, Missouri has gone from bad to worse following the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teen Saturday afternoon. Protests and riots persist, cops dressed in full riot gear are working to curb the violence, community leaders are encouraging peaceful protests, and there's still no clear picture of what actually transpired Saturday when Michael Brown was shot and killed. There appear to be conflicting reports from law enforcement and supposed eye witnesses regarding what actually happened. Law enforcement claim Brown assaulted the cop that took his life. Dorin Johnson who claims he was with Brown at the time he was shot has a very different story. Johnson says he and Brown were minding their own business when a cop rolled up, told them to get on the sidewalk, then proceeded to assault Brown and eventually kill him. Johnson's story seems to corroborate with another supposed eye witness, Piaget Crenshaw. Even more curious is that Johnson claims he, by way of his attorney, has reached out to local law enforcement to provide his account of the story, and Ferguson police are refusing to interview him. Chris Hayes interviewed Johnson and has a great summation of the various accounts:

All hell broke loose in Ferguson, Missouri after a police officer killed an unarmed teen. Michael Brown got into an altercation with local law enforcement, and was shot and killed by one of the police officers. According to ABC News:
The struggle began when the officer encountered two men, one of whom was Brown, in the street outside of an apartment complex, and one of the men pushed the office [sic] back toward his squad car, according to police. A shot was fired inside the squad car and then multiple shots were fired at Brown outside the car, killing him, authorities said.
The identification of the officer responsible for the shooting will be released tomorrow at 2:00 in a press conference, ABC News reports. A vigil held Sunday night in Brown's memory turned violent as attendees began looting and destroying local businesses: