Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

#Ferguson Witness: Mike Brown’s Hands Were Not Raised When Shot

#Ferguson Witness: Mike Brown’s Hands Were Not Raised When Shot

Brown advanced on Wilson despite orders to stop, even after being shot

A black witness who claims to have seen the killing of Mike Brown by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson “from start to finish” and who also purports to have just completed testifying in front of the Grand Jury, has subsequently been interviewed by the local St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper (on condition of anonymity).

Key facets of his testimony to the grand jury, as he recounts it, include:

  • Officer Wilson did not fire while Brown was moving away form him, but only when Brown turned back towards him.
  • Brown motioned with his arms out to his sides, but never raised them high.
  • Brown continued to advance on Wilson despite repeated orders to stop.
  • When Wilson fired his last rounds Brown was only ~20 feet away (those of you familiar with the Tueller drill understand the tactical implications of that distance, although this witness almost certainly did not).
  • Brown’s friend and criminal cohort Dorian Johnson took off running when the first round was fired inside Wilson’s police vehicle (thus casting further doubt on his testimony of later events, as if further doubt was needed).
  • He saw a struggle inside the patrol car, and saw Wilson’s hat fly off.
  • A shot was heard, at which point Brown ran, followed by Wilson (thus measurements of Brown’s body from Wilson’s vehicle are not likely representative of the distance between the men when Wilson fired).
  • Wilson, gun drawn, shouted repeatedly at Brown to stop his flight.
  • Brown stopped, mumbled something inaudible, and began advancing on Wilson, despite Wilson having his gun in hand.
  • Wilson again ordered Brown to stop, and fired three shots.
  • Brown staggered, apparently from being struck by one or more rounds, then continued to advance on Wilson.
  • Wilson fired four more rounds, the last of which discharged as Brown was falling.

Remarkably, after having provided this testimony, the witness is quoted in the interview as saying “He was already on his way down when he fired those last shots. What transpired to us, in my eyesight, was murder. Down outright murder.”

It is noteworthy that the Grand Jury also heard four hours of testimony from Officer Wilson personally, back on September 9.

Recently the Grand Jury elected to delay a decision on indictment of Wilson for an additional 60 days, beyond the fourth-month period normally provided.

Further, the prosecutor presenting the case to the Grand Jury has essentially simply handed them all available evidence for their perusal, and is making little or no effort to communicate the type of narrative of guilt that generally makes an indictment a foregone conclusion.

[Update (10/17/14): That last paragraph apparently created some confusion. This kind of lackadaisical effort by a prosecutor typically suggests an indictment is unlikely.]

–-Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

[Note: Featured Image changed after publication]


NOTE: The Law of Self Defense is proud to announce the launch of Law of Self Defense Webinars. These are live, interactive, online versions of our 4-hour LOSD Seminars that are conducted all over the country. We currently have over 15 dates to choose from, at the low price of $99/person. For more info, click here.

Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and the author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” available at the Law of Self Defense blog (autographed copies available) and Amazon.com (paperback and Kindle). He also holds Law of Self Defense Seminars around the country, and provides free online self-defense law video lectures at the Law of Self Defense Institute and podcasts through iTunes, Stitcher, and elsewhere.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

Wow. After testimony like that, how could anyone ever hope to get a conviction?

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Toranth. | October 16, 2014 at 1:02 pm

    I don’t see a conviction as likely unless the jury pool is racially stacked pretty badly. Conviction must be beyond a reasonable doubt, and that presumably includes in MO disproving affirmative defenses, such as self defense. Is a 300 lb giant who has already been involved in that last half our or so in probably three class B felonies, all involving force or violence, a reasonable and imminent threat to inflect death or great bodily injury when he turns around and starts advancing on Wilson? Can that be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt? (Or at least one of AB’s 5 elements of SD). I think unlikely. And that doesn’t even get into the question of arrest power by LEOs under MO law. With the physical assault on Wilson, and the apparent attempt for his firearm, Brown has likely shown himself dangerous enough that deadly force can Constitutionally be used to arrest or stop him.

    MattMusson in reply to Toranth. | October 16, 2014 at 1:07 pm

    If he facts interfere with the fantasy – guess which one the racial greivence industry will choose?

      Deodorant in reply to MattMusson. | October 16, 2014 at 3:20 pm

      It seems to me there has been a ‘racial greivence industry’ made up of white people since 1860. You seem to be a card carrying member.

      As Bob Dylan once sang: “A South politician preaches to the poor white man
      “You got more than blacks, don’t complain
      You’re better than them, you been born with white skin” they explain
      And the Negro’s name
      Is used it is plain
      For the politician’s gain
      As he rises to fame
      And the poor white remains
      On the caboose of the train
      But it ain’t him to blame
      He’s only a pawn in their game.”

      I guess that broke down. So now all you have is self-pity and resentment.

        Ragspierre in reply to Deodorant. | October 16, 2014 at 4:00 pm

        Oh, great! Now we have to hear from the historically illiterate D’Orderant (and, boy, is that true on several levels!).

        Were it not for white people following Judeo-Christian ethics, we would not have the racial freedom we do now, you poor, stupid, lying, trolling Collectivist.

        And, trust me, if I had done what Wilson APPEARS to have done, I’d have been grave yard dead, too.

          Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 16, 2014 at 5:27 pm

          Oh, it’s the house troll. Yep, southern white christians fought for integration. On what planet?

          SRaher in reply to Ragspierre. | October 16, 2014 at 5:45 pm

          “…if I had done what Wilson APPEARS to have done, I’d have been grave yard dead, too.”
          Rags, I think you meant “what Brown APPEARS to have done”.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 16, 2014 at 5:57 pm

          Correct. My names curse…

          (facepalm)

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Ragspierre. | October 16, 2014 at 8:22 pm

          Actually many Southern White Christians did fight for integration, it was Southern White DEMOCRATS who opposed it.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 16, 2014 at 11:10 pm

          And Southern Jews, too.

          Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 17, 2014 at 2:05 pm

          @Gremlin1974 Ah yes, the DEMOCRAT canard. Are we talking about liberal democrats or democrats that switched to the REPUBLICAN party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Ever heard of Strom Thruman?

          Why do you guys keeping bringing up an obvious fallacy. Certainly you don’t believe that the current democratic party owns that legacy? That is akin to Hollocaust denial. You embarrass yourselves with a red herring.

          What fascinates me about this site is that arguments like that are made in all seriousness.

          Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 17, 2014 at 2:21 pm

          @Ragspierre “And Southern Jews, too.” I can’t recount the history of the civil rights struggle in these pages. But when you look at who died, who was jailed, who was beaten up and who was intimidated, it was local blacks and the so-called ‘outside agitators’. Now you prefer ‘professional agitators’.

          Meanwhile, it was the professional white demagogues that fought on the wrong side.

          I have no love for Al Sharpton going all the way back to the Tawana Brawley case and the Crown Heights riots. But to dismiss all of the anger and frustration is ad hominem. I know you know the definition, but I don’t think you can use it correctly in context.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Ragspierre. | October 17, 2014 at 5:54 pm

          @Deodorant

          “Ever heard of Strom Thruman?”

          Yep, I have also heard of Robert Bird. 🙂

          “Why do you guys keeping bringing up an obvious fallacy.”

          Actually the “fallacy” comes in when you try to imply that all the racist just became republicans.

          “Certainly you don’t believe that the current democratic party owns that legacy?”

          Oh, no I know they don’t own it, that would be to much like honesty for the current Democrats.

          “That is akin to Hollocaust denial.”

          ROFLMAO, yea, the truth is like denying the Holocaust.

          “You embarrass yourselves with a red herring.”

          Pretty sure I am not the one who should be embarrassed.

          “What fascinates me about this site is that arguments like that are made in all seriousness.”

          What fascinates me it that liberals like you come here and try to spew your talking points and lies and actually expect not to get ripped to shreds with logic, reason, and facts.

        Ragspierre in reply to Deodorant. | October 16, 2014 at 5:35 pm

        Some of M.L.King’s most important allies were white southern businessmen, moron.

        Look it up. You won’t find it in Zinn’s propaganda tome.

        Also, if you weren’t such a stupid, duped phuc, you’d know that much of Jim Crow was a attempt to limit market choices that a lot of people in the South were all in favor of offering to everyone.

        But you ARE a stupid, duped phuc, so…

          Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 17, 2014 at 2:45 pm

          All of M.L.King’s most important adversaries were white southern businessmen and politicians, moron.

          Why don’t you skip the name-calling. I think we all know how you feel about me. It doesn’t add to your arguments, but it does demonstrate that you are intemperant and uncivil. Apparently, anything that questions you ideology must be attacked lest it threatens the foundations of you closed system.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Ragspierre. | October 17, 2014 at 6:07 pm

          Deodorant

          “Why don’t you skip the name-calling.”

          Seriously, right after you called him a name, LMAO!

          “I think we all know how you feel about me.”

          I really don’t think you do know how I “feel” about you, but just to clarify, frankly I don’t care if you live, die, or grow mushrooms in the crack of your arse.

          “but it does demonstrate that you are intemperant and uncivil.”

          Aww, did Rags hurt his wittle feelings, grow up.

          “Apparently, anything that questions you ideology must be attacked lest it threatens the foundations of you closed system.”

          Dude you walked into our playground. If you did so thinking your ideas were going to be welcome here, well then that is on you.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Deodorant. | October 16, 2014 at 5:37 pm

        I see Occupy LI is back, stupid chants and all.

So, when do the riots start again?

How could anyone come to the conclusion that it was “Down outright murder.”?

    Ragspierre in reply to Merlin01. | October 16, 2014 at 12:26 pm

    They’ve been on-going. Several Wal-Marts in the area are reported to have removed ammo from their shelves.

    And we know that professional agitators are in the area doing their “short course” in street war.

      MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Ragspierre. | October 16, 2014 at 12:38 pm

      The real question is”:

      1) Are they hiding it from looters?
      or
      2) Are they saving it for their own weapons for when the looters come?

      Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 16, 2014 at 5:34 pm

      They are allowed to peacefully assemble and petition the government. It is in the Constitution along with the 2nd amendment. If you want to call the demonstrators rioters, that is your privilege. It doesn’t make it so.

      Was Tom Paine a professional agitator? How about Samuel Adams?

        Merlin01 in reply to Deodorant. | October 16, 2014 at 7:02 pm

        Riots are riots and protests are protests. My question still stands!

        Yo D

        Calling a rioter a protester shows your ignorance of the English language.

        No one is questioning the right of the usual race baiting poverty pimps to come down and incite the ignorant among the Ferguson MO population, or to bring along a rent-a-mob. Walk, sing chants, call cops pigs, that fine.

        The rioters are people (local or rent a mob members) who destroy property, vehicles, people’s inventory, assault persons who have nothing to do with this incident.

        So you don’t further show your lack of comprehension, a looter, closely related to a rioter, is someone who goes and steals other people’s property. Simply put, he’s a thief, but he likes to excuse himself, saying he is justified for some slight that was put on him by people other than the property owner.

        malclave in reply to Deodorant. | October 16, 2014 at 7:36 pm

        “and petition the government”

        Actually, SCOTUS struck that down when they punted on the appeal of the California Prop 8 ruling.

        Petitioning the government is a privilege, not a right, and the government can revoke it at will.

          Deodorant in reply to malclave. | October 17, 2014 at 2:32 pm

          That is your opinion. There are SCOTUS opinions I think were decided incorrectly. But we continue to live by the Constitution.

          During the Bush Administration the Secret Service started herding protestors into ‘Free Speech zones’ that happened to be be far from Bush and the press. Some wag is reported to have remarked ‘that he thought all of America was a free speech zone’. I believe the Secret Service has continue that unlawful behavior under Obama.

          So we can agree that the principle is abused, but I disagree with labeling all of the demonstrations as riots. There were some rioters at some demonstrations. But most of the demonstrations were peaceful, although the police treated them all as illegal. It is unclear how many of the demonstrations were race riots and how many were police riotes.

        DaveGinOly in reply to Deodorant. | October 17, 2014 at 2:54 pm

        MLK knew the difference between peaceful protest and rioting. You apparently to not. Clue – theft, vandalism, firebombs, and violence are not part of peaceful, constitutionally protected assembly and protest. Any time harm is intentionally inflicted (theft and destruction of property, in this instance) upon an innocent party, crimes are committed. The exercise of no right intentionally harms another person or his property. Nobody has a constitutionally protected right to commit crimes. “Right” and “crime” are never synonymous. Your mama apparently never taught you the difference between the two.

        Casey in reply to Deodorant. | October 17, 2014 at 8:31 pm

        So, what, the people who destroyed property and looted local businesses were merely exercising their inalienable rights? Whoda thunk it.

        By the way, nice dodge on the previous sub-thread above when you called someone a name-caller, then ignored his point.

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 16, 2014 at 5:55 pm

      Well, stupid, you’re talking about two populations. One of them uses the other for cover.

      http://2-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/xmolotov-ferguson.jpg.pagespeed.ic.by18QAgdhZ.jpg

      Nobody has a right to throw fire-bombs at anybody else except in a war. I’d call that “riot”. How ’bout you, stupid?

      LISA FITHIAN is NOT on any kind of plane with any of the Founders. She’s a dedicated Collectivist/Anarchist who has made a career…and a well-paid one…out of stoking dupes into a lawless mob.

      She’s LOVE you… Ya moron.

        Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 17, 2014 at 2:37 pm

        How do you make money ‘stoking dupes into a lawless mob’?

        If you are talking about their use of the media, Limbaugh, Levin, Breitbart and Fox News do it, too. They do it better and they cause vastly more damage.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Deodorant. | October 17, 2014 at 6:02 pm

          @Deodorant

          “How do you make money ‘stoking dupes into a lawless mob’?”

          I don’t know you would have to ask Al Sharpton and his crew.

          “they cause vastly more damage.”

          The politest answer I can give this statement is Bullshit!

          NeoConScum in reply to Deodorant. | October 17, 2014 at 6:05 pm

          ‘Yo, Deo Dude…What riots, carnage, law breaking have those Eeeeeeevil Cons like Rush, Levin, Breitbart News, etc??

          Casey in reply to Deodorant. | October 17, 2014 at 8:32 pm

          Sorry. Missed out on the riots caused by Fox, Rush, etc. Please do elucidate.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Merlin01. | October 16, 2014 at 8:24 pm

    This is a black man testifying in a manor that does not server the race baiting line, most likely he said it was “murder” to protect himself when it comes out that he is the one who testified, frankly he would be stupid not to have done so.

The sequence of shots looks consistent with the autopsy report we saw earlier. My guess is that the earlier shots were to the arm, and the last two to the head, with the second last one to around the eye being fatal, causing Brown to topple forward, allowing the last one to enter the top of his skull, on the way down. That testimony though doesn’t give much room for misses, which means that that was probably decent shooting by Wilson, esp given the circumstances.

Question to AB though – hypothetically assuming my explanation is correct, does it matter legally that the 2nd to last shot was probably fatal, when it comes to the last shot. If Brown was toppling forward at the time of that last shot, was it necessary? Could it be argued that it was excessive force? My guess is not, that when Wilson took that last shot, he didn’t know that the threat had essentially ended, and was very quickly made after the previous one. Maybe a classic “double tap”.

    Unless there was a distinct pause before the final shot that entered the top of the head–unlikely given the shot occurred in the time it took Brown to fall forward–there’s no credible argument to be made that it was excessive force and an “execution shot,” (which is what excessive force would be under these circumstances).

    Contrast with Michael Dunn’s three distinct volleys of fire.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

    rokiloki in reply to Bruce Hayden. | October 16, 2014 at 1:36 pm

    “If Brown was toppling forward at the time of that last shot, was it necessary?”

    It may not have been “necessary,” but it was understandable. We don’t know how long it was between that fatal shot and the final shot. It could have been a fraction of a second. So Wilson could have already been in the process of pulling the trigger for the last shot as Brown was falling forward.

    Another possibility is that Wilson didn’t know at that moment the shot was unnecessary. Brown, with his forward momentum, could have appeared to Wilson, in that fraction of a second, as continuing his attack. Wilson had already shot him multiple times with little effect.

    If you have a violent, 300lb man charging at you, it would be very difficult, in the span of a second, to determine if he is still charging or just falling forward.

    MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Bruce Hayden. | October 16, 2014 at 2:16 pm

    bROWN VS us

      MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | October 16, 2014 at 2:19 pm

      Brown vs US

      ” In a prosecution for murder, it appeared that the defendant shot the deceased several times and again when the deceased had fallen and was lying on the ground. Held that evidence of self-defense was for the jury, and that, if they disbelieved the defendant’s testimony that the last shot was an accident, they might still have acquitted him if, though intentional, it followed close upon the others in the heat of the conflict and while he believed he was fighting for his life. “

      Humphrey's Executor in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | October 16, 2014 at 5:30 pm

      I thought it was black letter law that you can’t murder someone who is already dead.

    platypus in reply to Bruce Hayden. | October 16, 2014 at 3:30 pm

    Excessive force is a civil rights lawsuit term, to my way of thinking. The question is, was it justified to shoot this person to stop a threat? If it was justified to shoot him, then the motive MUST be self-defense (which is identical to no malice). IOW, the necessity for last shot MIGHT be relevant to a civil rights lawsuit but it is irrelevant here.

    Our system trusts civilians to render justice in the form of juries, both grand and petit. But they aren’t skilled in the nuances (otherwise Mr. Branca wouldn’t be such a special talent) and this juror’s comment shows that.

    Bruce, even if the second to last shot was fatal, the cop Wilson had no time to stop firing before the last shot.

    But also, if the second to last shot was fatal, I’d call the last shot a “no harm, no foul” — the Attacking Giant Brown was already dead, so that last shot was a freebie!

    Bruce, for the first time that I know of, there has been some corroboration that there was a shot fired during the altercation in Wilson’s SUV. The wound to Brown’s arm could have happened at this time (reaching into the SUV for Wilson’s weapon), and this would actually corroborate part of Dorian Johnson’s tv interview.

    Nobody has proffered that Wilson was shot in the arm as he reached into Wilson’s SUV. It would tie together several loose ends.

Layman questions, re: 60 day delay in the indictment decision, past the 4 month normal period:

1) Is the delay typical in police-involved or otherwise high profile/sensitive cases?

2) Any indication the delay is for political reasons rather than procedural or tactical (given imminent riots) because midterms are just two weeks off?

3) If political, is it local (Ferguson), state (Missouri), or federal (Holdama) politicos bringing the pressure?

    rokiloki in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 16, 2014 at 1:47 pm

    If they don’t indict Wilson (and they shouldn’t) then you know absolutely the delay was all political.

    Obama and Co don’t hesitate to persecute if it benefits their party (remember the “if I had a son…” remarks about Trayvon?)

    No, this delay can only mean one thing – they don’t have the evidence.

      Midwest Rhino in reply to rokiloki. | October 16, 2014 at 5:30 pm

      I would guess “they” do have the evidence … evidence to justify the shooting, meaning no prosecution.

      I’ve seen no evidence the grand jury is biased. It makes sense to me, to hold the decision till after elections, since a “no bill” decision would serve to fire up the base … to riot. That could influence elections favorably for Democrats, as I see it. I’d think Team Obama would rather have “no justice” (no bill) announced November 1st.

        I agree that there’s no sense in waiting for the election(s), but it might be pretty smart to wait until a week or two before Christmas, then drop the no-bill bomb. Folks are less likely to head off to riot OR protest right before a big holiday, and less-than-friendly weather for outdoor protesting will be a factor, too.

        There’s a reason you don’t see a lot of protest/riot photos with snow in the background.

Dear Late(Yet, not lamented)Michael Brown: What part of attacking a police officer in his car do you believe doesn’t deserve deadly force as a legitimate response, Kid?

What part of running away from, turning and charging towards a police officer AFTER being ordered to STOP do you not get, Son?

What part of being videoed by security cameras in convenience store while you steal merchandise and mug female employee do you NOT F***ing Get, Homes?

This knuckle dragging, law-abiding, well educated and employed white boy would have assumed Officer Wilson would shoot me IF I were stump stupid enough and CRIMINAL enough to do the above,’Yo.

Wouldn’t have been riots afterwards either, Genius.

‘Nuff said,’Yo.

    platypus in reply to NeoConScum. | October 16, 2014 at 3:36 pm

    LoL. ‘Stump Stupid’ Where has that phrase been my whole life? Lord knows I could have used it hundreds of times. 🙂

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to NeoConScum. | October 16, 2014 at 5:54 pm

    He probably gets it and has it down now, as it came to him in the last moments before lights out.

    Another useless, parasitic scumbag off the streets, with all eternity to consider what you’ve said.

darkknight3565 | October 16, 2014 at 1:04 pm

If Mr. Brown has indeed ceased his escape attempt, and had “held his elbows straight out from his torso, with palms turned up in a sort of gesture of disbelief”, as reported by stltoday.com, then Mr. Brown should not have been shot. According to the witness testimony Mr. Branca quotes, Mr. Brown was in a surrender position.

Also disturbing is the testimony that Mr. Brown was shot additionally after he had already been shot, was 20 to 25 feet away from the officer, and was clearly unarmed. In fact, again according to the testimony heard yesterday, the last few shots occurred when Mr. Brown was simply “staggering”.

So it seems very likely that this shooting was unjustified, based on the testimony so far.

    Well, it’s good to see the RGI sock-puppets have joined us today. Did you even bother to RTFI, or did you just decide to go with the talking points.

    It what universe is holding your elbows out and turning your palms up considered to be a gesture of surrender? (I really want to know, because if I ever end up there and someone starts firing a sandwich at me, I’d like to be able to let them know I give up.)

    Don’t you think that maybe, just maybe, continuing to advance, after being ordered to stop and AFTER BEING SHOT, might just signal that you are still hostile.

    Based on what I read, the only thing officer Wilson did wrong was leave rounds in his magazine.

      jayjerome66 in reply to Aonghus. | October 16, 2014 at 2:11 pm

      The new eye witness report is only one of about a dozen. Though it would add ‘reasonable doubt’ in a criminal trial, it doesn’t come into play in the grand jury evaluation – they could choose to accept the other eye witness accounts instead. And there’s a lot of those, including the two white contractors who also say Brown’s hands were in the air. Wilson’s story makes sense to me in teh context of what happened earlier at the cigar robber, showing Brown assaulting the clerk, but it may not make sense to people on the GJ, unless there’s enough other corroborating evidence that Wilson was also attacked.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to jayjerome66. | October 16, 2014 at 6:14 pm

        Early on it was reported that as Wilson was driving off, he received a transmission about the store robbery, which would probably have included a description of the suspects. It was reported that Wilson saw the cigars in the potential suspects’ hands as he first came upon them in the street when he told them to get on the sidewalk.

        So Brown KNEW he’d just committed a felony and he KNEW the evidence was right there in their hands when Wilson backed up. And even if Wilson hadn’t received a transmission about the robbery and the description of the perps and was backing up because they ignored his directive to get out of the street, Brown and his lying scumbag buddy KNEW Brown had just committed a felony and would have reason to more violently attempt to escape police.

          And, note, that the felony that they had committed was likely a Class B felony (2nd Degree Robbery). Which is way stupid for $5 or so of cigars (or whatever they were). Penalty for Class B felonies is apparently 5-15 years. And, by the time that Brown was apparently advancing on Wilson, and Wilson fired to stop him, we are maybe talking three Class B felonies that may or may not have been served concurrently (since arguably there were at least two separate incidents). So, theoretically, Brown could have been facing up to 45 years in prison at that point (though more likely, I suspect, somewhere above 5 and below 15).

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Aonghus. | October 16, 2014 at 6:03 pm

      And let us not forget that Brown had already violently punched Wilson and allegedly tried to get his gun.

      And let us also not forget that Brown was a giant hulk of a man, still coming at Wilson.

    Ragspierre in reply to darkknight3565. | October 16, 2014 at 1:25 pm

    “…Mr. Brown should not have been shot.”

    Well, we note that in every circumstance you note, you are busy exonerating Mr. Brown.

    Yet the gesture you prefer to depict as “surrender” is as easily a “Wha…??? You gonna shoot me, pig…???” gesture.

    Mr. Brown failed to stop when told to.

    He chose to keep advancing, after APPARENTLY attacking a LEO inside their car, complete with a fired shot.

    Sorry to crush your happy lil’ fantasy, but there is reasonable doubt all over this, and it would (on these facts) be a dream to defend.

      NeoConScum in reply to Ragspierre. | October 16, 2014 at 5:59 pm

      Rags…S’plaining to the deaf reminds me of a wonderful line in a James Elroy thriller that goes something like this: “Ya tell a man how it’s really gotta be…AND, the Mother****er just doesn’t listen!!”

      Then, ya shoot him. ((-:

    “Surrender” would be complying with the officer’s instructions. If you’re ordered to stop and you continue advancing towards the officer, it’s not going to go well for you.

    There is absolutely nothing in the witness’ testimony that indicates Brown was ever “in a surrender position.” In fact, just the opposite. The witness said Brown at one point “motioned with his arms out to his sides, but never raised them high.”

    The witness also said that the cop repeatedly ordered Brown to stop, and yet Brown continued to advance on him. Even after the cop shot and hit Brown, Brown continued to advance, according to the witness: “Wilson again ordered Brown to stop, and fired three shots. Brown staggered, apparently from being struck by one or more rounds, then continued to advance on Wilson.”

    The 300-lb Brown had already assaulted and nearly shot the cop in his vehicle. He then ignored repeated commands from the cop to stop. He turned and advanced on the cop even as the cop was holding a gun on him. He continued to advance on the cop even after the cop shot him.

    It’s pretty obvious that the cop was acting in self-defense.

    “[Brown] was clearly unarmed”

    Unarmed does not equate to not dangerous.

    Wilson had already been attacked once. He was not obligated to take another beating because Brown had no weapon (besides his fists.)

      Miles in reply to rokiloki. | October 16, 2014 at 5:27 pm

      Check your FBI statistics. Fists indeed are VERY deadly weapons and Mr. Brown WAS quite well armed.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to rokiloki. | October 16, 2014 at 8:40 pm

      Wilson may also have been pretty badly injured at the time and close to losing consciousness. Also, if Wilson did have an orbital fracture (which has not been confirmed or denied as of yet) then his vision may have been affected.

      Also, there is no way that Wilson would or could have known if he hit Brown with the first volley of 3 shots (even with unimpaired vision). Hollywood makes gunshot wounds look all big bright and bloody, it just isn’t always the case in real life. In real life the blood tends to come later.

    jayjerome66 in reply to darkknight3565. | October 16, 2014 at 1:58 pm

    There’s still no clear-cut answers to exactly what happened. There’s a lot of contradictory eye-witness reports, and video and audio recorded evidence that hasn’t been released for our evaluation.

    The grand jury has all that, and they’ll try to make sense of it. And if Wilson’s story holds up — that he was assaulted in the police car by Brown — under the law, I think he may squeak out a no-indictment call under the Missouri Revised Statutes for assaulting a police officer – though that’s not a sure bet; it may depend on how the GJ interprets them.

    Here’s the statutes if you want to evaluate the language yourself:

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5650000082.HTM

    Section (3) and section (6) are the relevant parts. To apply, they state the suspect must cause “serious physical injury to a law enforcement officer” and/or “recklessly” place a law enforcement officer “in apprehension of immediate serious physical injury.”

    Though I think under those stipulations Wilson was justified in shooting the advancing Brown (I’m assuming Brown did attack him), will the GJ see it that way too? Or will they think that a 25 foot distance between them was sufficient space to believe Wilson’s life was not yet threatened?

    A lot may depend on the hospital photos reportedly taken of Officer Wilson’s face after the incident. If they show he was indeed punched, I think he’s in the clear, as far as the GJ outcome. But that still won’t bring closure for him from the black community or their cohorts in the black grievance industry, anymore than brutal evidence of George Zimmerman’s smashed head was accepted by blacks as justification for his own self-defense claim. Like Zimmerman, Wilson will be apprehensively looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life.

      Bruce Hayden in reply to jayjerome66. | October 16, 2014 at 6:28 pm

      Maybe a bit more complex – there are also assault statutes (565.050, 565.060), as well as both a 1st (565.081) and 3rd (565.083) degree assaults on a police officer, attempted murder (565.020, 565.021 plus 564.011), etc. Multiple ways there to get to Class B felonies, but hard to get to a Class A (the inchoate “attempt” statute downgrades one level from the attempted crime).

      My calculations are that the following are possible:
      – Initial convenience store robbery: 2nd Degree Robbery (Class B)
      – Slamming door on Wilson: 2nd Degree Assault or 2nd degree assault on a police officer (Class B)
      – Grabbing for Wilson’s firearm: Attempted 1st degree murder, 2nd degree assault on a police officer (both Class B), Attempted 2nd degree murder (Class C), etc.
      – Advancing on Wilson after the above and after being told to freeze, etc.: Attempted 2nd degree assault, attempted 2nd degree assault on a police officer, and maybe attempted 1st or 2nd degree murder (mostly Class C felonies).

    Bruce Hayden in reply to darkknight3565. | October 16, 2014 at 6:39 pm

    Stating the obvious here, but surrender position is hands above your head. Or, maybe even better, flat on the ground. Autopsy report has the shots to the fronts of the arms, which means that they were not raised above Brown’s head at the time that he was shot. Rather, they were, by necessity, lowered. Not sure where you got the idea that elbows in (or whatever), arms down, and palms out is a well understood surrender position.

    Chem_Geek in reply to darkknight3565. | October 17, 2014 at 2:23 pm

    Not much of a “surrender position,” more like an insolent nonverbal challenge and continuing the assault.

    DaveGinOly in reply to darkknight3565. | October 17, 2014 at 4:32 pm

    If you can’t imagine a POS like Brown approaching Officer Wilson with his hands raised while challenging Wilson to shoot him (in other words, making a mock gesture of surrender when in fact his intent was hostile), then you don’t have much of an imagination. It is entirely possible that Brown brought his hands up to some degree, but because he was advancing on Wilson it is highly unlikely that it was his intent to surrender. A person surrendering to an armed individual stops in his tracks and obeys the commands of the person with the gun. A person with a gun commanding the surrender of a violent individual (Wilson had just been attacked by Brown) must presume that the malefactor is trying to get close enough to make (another) attempt at taking the firearm. As Mas Ayoob has said, “A person going for your gun is a person going for a gun.” It is entirely justifiable to shoot that person.

    NeoConScum in reply to darkknight3565. | October 17, 2014 at 9:39 pm

    I would hope that Officer Brown would “poooooooool the treeeegeeerrr ’till she goes clickity-Cleeeek.”

    (*Thank You, “The Big Labowski”.)

Prepare for the inevitable “he’s lying!” It has been repeated enough that Brown has his hands raised in surrender so it is now a fact.

Everyone who saw Wilson was justified in shooting Brown is a liar.

Everyone who saw Brown on his knees surrendering before he was executed is an absolute saint.

Just like with Zimmerman, all that matters is the narrative that got the most attention. Truth has no place.

Henry Hawkins | October 16, 2014 at 2:07 pm

Calling all cars: If a citizen with whom you are dealing, arguing, etc., enters your patrol vehicle without your permission and against your orders, it is safe to assume a fight will ensue?

If Brown wasn’t fighting with Wilson in the patrol car, WTF do we suppose they were doing, trading baseball cards? Buying tickets for the Policeman’s Ball? Smooching?

    jayjerome66 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 16, 2014 at 5:49 pm

    I don’t think Brown entered the vehicle. I believe he leaned inside through the window, and a struggle, and subsequent gun shot, took place there..

      Henry Hawkins in reply to jayjerome66. | October 16, 2014 at 6:50 pm

      Are you serious? To defend Brown you’d differentiate entering through a window as OK while entering through a door would have been verboten?

      Go thrust yourself uninvited into the next occupied patrol car window you see and tell us whether the officer welcomed you or fought you.

      Boy, I got a box of hammers smarter than you.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 16, 2014 at 8:47 pm

        I don’t think Jay was defending Brown I think he was just trying to point out the distinction of being in the car vs leaning into the car.

        Though it does bear pointing out that doing that to a civilian with a CCW, leaning in and struggling with the driver, would most likely be more than credible reason for a civilian to use deadly force.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Gremlin1974. | October 17, 2014 at 10:57 am

          I disagree. You can count on jay to take the ‘victim’s’ side, the lib side, the wrong side. The key is the word entry or entering the vehicle. You can enter the traditional way, you can enter through a window, you can enter through the trunk even, but they are all entries. Brown entered the patrol vehicle -through the window, but that’s still entry.

        jayjerome66 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 18, 2014 at 12:45 am

        Henry stop being a dodo.

        I’ve been a supporter of Wilson from the start — donated money to his defense fund.

        And I’m not a liberal.
        Or a conservative.
        Like the rest of the majority of American’s I disdain both extremes.

      Jay, that is exactly what Dorian Johnson said in his multiple tv interviews. Officer Wilson “grabbed my friend by the neck (with one hand) and pulled him into the vehicle.”

      Right there’s a star witness.

        DaveGinOly in reply to Redneck Law. | October 17, 2014 at 6:23 pm

        When I read that, I thought, “How preposterous.”

        Imagine you’re sitting in a car with the window rolled down. Just outside the door is a man standing 6’+. Now imagine what it’s going to do to your shoulder to reach out the window, and grab this tall man by the neck. Just thinking about it nearly dislocates my shoulder and tears my rotator cuff.

        Conclusion: It didn’t happen. If an officer did grab someone this way, how would he propose to now deal with his suspect then there’s a car door entangled with them?

          Gremlin1974 in reply to DaveGinOly. | October 17, 2014 at 6:46 pm

          Knowing what I do about body mechanics, which is quite a bit, I agree it is highly unlikely that someone more than 100 lbs lighter and in a seated position pulled a 300 lb man down to window level by the scruff of the neck. 🙂

        It’s my understanding that Wilson was in an SUV, not a sedan, so he would have been higher off the ground than one might think.

        No way he’s pulling a 300 pound dude into an SUV, plus getting that dude to grapple for his sidearm, plus getting that dude to break his head.

        I’m pretty sure that’s all on the 300 pound thug.

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

          jayjerome66 in reply to Andrew Branca. | October 18, 2014 at 12:57 am

          What I think happened was after Wilson started pulling from Brown and Johnson he saw the stolen cigars in Brown’s hand.

          Having just heard a description of the robbery suspect on his radio, he backed up to the two guys, who were still meandering in the street, but Wilson couldn’t open the police car door to get out because Brown’s body was blocking it.

          Then I think Wilson grabbed Brown through the window, maybe by his shirt front or collar, to keep him from running off, prior to arresting him. He may have drawn his gun then, and seeing that, Brown attacked the cop to get away.

          I don’t think Brown ever got inside the patrol car — today’s forensic story (Friday) says Brown’s blood was on the inside panel of the door, indicating he was leaning through the window when shot.

MouseTheLuckyDog | October 16, 2014 at 2:17 pm

Brown vs US

” In a prosecution for murder, it appeared that the defendant shot the deceased several times and again when the deceased had fallen and was lying on the ground. Held that evidence of self-defense was for the jury, and that, if they disbelieved the defendant’s testimony that the last shot was an accident, they might still have acquitted him if, though intentional, it followed close upon the others in the heat of the conflict and while he believed he was fighting for his life. “

Is it just me or are the good citizens of Ferguson refraining from attacking the po-leese since this incident?

    Mr. Izz in reply to platypus. | October 16, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    It depends on what you consider “attacking.” Having things thrown at you, being spit on, called every name in the book, and constantly having the threat of violence right in front of you is certainly close to being attacked.

    There have been a few officers physically hurt.

    Also, police vehicles are being damaged, the protesters have been running drills on how to storm a police department, and there is a lot of video evidence of individuals inciting a riot. Some of the violence is being lessened because the police keep arresting the agitators. Multiple arrests in a short amount of time really start to cause an individual to think twice before doing something really stupid.

    Good citizens of Ferguson? Not likely. I hold no sympathy for them. This town will be economically ruined for at least a decade.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Mr. Izz. | October 16, 2014 at 6:53 pm

      These protestors consist, I believe, of a bunch of loud-mouthed local flakes who would not be reliable to show for any organized storming of the PD, and hired agitators from out of town who would only be called into action if it’s politically beneficial to the ‘rats, especially black ‘rats.

      Now that Cpt. Johnson has been disgraced and dissed by the black “community”, and the Black Panthers all left sometime back except for a couple local wannabee hangers-on types, it’s becoming clear that we won’t hear or see any significant action from them until the GJ releases its decision. Then, either way, they’ll be back. Until then, some locals, lead by obola’s CRS, will make some relatively non-violent and meager noise.

    Valerie in reply to platypus. | October 16, 2014 at 6:22 pm

    There seem to be two groups.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to platypus. | October 16, 2014 at 6:52 pm

    Part of the pro-agitator group’s schtick is to keep cameras rolling while they try to taunt the police into doing something MSNBC-worthy.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 16, 2014 at 7:05 pm

      The Ferguson PD’s stoic resistance to the onslaught of provocation has been admirable.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | October 16, 2014 at 7:25 pm

        A lot of PDs in larger cities and/or campuses actually train for it in a riot situation.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 17, 2014 at 1:48 am

          Yes, I was aware of that. It’s been so for many years, and I had to go through the specific training myself many moons ago, even though I hadn’t worked the streets in years.

          But for a little department like Ferguson PD, which probably doesn’t have the resources to keep training up to the high standards that urban departments require, I’d say they’ve handled themselves very well.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 17, 2014 at 10:58 am

          Absolutely. If I were a cop, I’d be in prison now.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 17, 2014 at 6:48 pm

          @JackRussellTerrierist

          Jack I guess I have just been being dense, I never caught on that you were a LEO. Thanks for your service.

The concept of shots being fired after the incident was ‘over’ has been a source of heated debate for what seems to be forever.

I strongly recommend that all interested parties visit the “Force Science Institute” website and peruse the many studies that they have conducted on this subject.

Their conclusions may surprise.

URL: http://www.forcescience.org/

I’ve never understood holding your arms out to the side, palms open, to be a “surrender” position.

Last I checked, it was a “what the **** are you doin’?” position usually accompanied by an aggressive forward push of the neck and forehead with loud, aggressive speech.

I’m not surprised to read it was immediately followed by a charge that put Officer Wilson in fear of his safety and possibly life, where the danger would otherwise have lapsed somewhat to him personally.

Where is the apology from the Governor?
Where is the press?
Where is the 24/7 news coverage ?
What’s wrong with this this picture?

St.Louis Cards lost the NLCS last night. Maybe it’s that Kramma thing biting them. Hey, just saying…((-:

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend