Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Ferguson Tag

Posted by Andrew Branca on November 01, 2014 25 Comments
CNN reports that the Department of Justice continues to express frustration with the refusal of local Ferguson officials to hide from the Grand Jury and the public generally truthful information about the August 9 shooting of Michael Brown.  These same frustrations have been repeatedly echoed by the most hardcore of the Ferguson protestors, at increasing volume as they see the prospects for an indictment of officer Wilson rapidly fading. County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch has asked federal officials to coordinate on the timing of the announcement of the local Grand Jury outcome, in the interests of minimizing the potential for more rioting, looting, and arson.  It is widely expected that the local Grand Jury will decline to indict Wilson, because of a profound lack of evidence of criminal conduct. CNN's report shows that DOJ officials have declined to do so, arguing that it would "undermine their argument that the federal investigation is independent."  Of course, an official closure of the DOJ investigation would also not allow the Department to follow the strategy they have in the Zimmerman case of dragging  out their investigation for years.  This strategy pursued in the Zimmerman case allows for such politically expedient announcements, days before a major election, as the sudden convening of a Zimmerman Grand Jury based upon evidence of highly questionable credibility. The CNN article notes that the state and federal investigations are based upon separate and distinct statutes, and thus are not entirely identical.  Left unsaid is the equally obvious point that the state and federal investigations serve different political masters.

Posted by Andrew Branca on November 01, 2014 7 Comments
The Washington Post is reporting that the Department of Justice have found little legal basis on which to bring civil rights charges over the August 9 shooting of the black Mike Brown by white police officer Darren Wilson.  The reason:  the actual evidence simply doesn't support such a case.
Justice Department investigators have all but concluded they do not have a strong enough case to bring civil rights charges against Darren Wilson, the white police officer who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Mo., law enforcement officials said.... “The evidence at this point does not support civil rights charges against Officer Wilson,” said one person briefed on the investigation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case. Justice Department officials are loath to acknowledge publicly that their case cannot now meet the high legal threshold for a successful civil rights prosecution. The timing is sensitive: Tensions are high in greater St. Louis as people await the results of a grand jury’s review of the case.
This information is based on interviews with DOJ investigators on condition of anonymity, presumably to avoid punishment by their superiors.  On the record, Brian Fallon, a DOJ spokesman, maintains that the Federal investigation is ongoing, and the Post reporting is based on "idle speculation."

Posted by Andrew Branca on October 28, 2014 59 Comments
A group purporting to be part of "Anonymous" claims that it has insider information from two independent sources with knowledge of relevant secret internal police communications that Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson will not be indicted in the killing of Michael Brown. It further reports that this non-indictment is to be made public on or before November 10, 2014, and both regional law enforcement and the Missouri National Guard are being prepared for widespread civil unrest.  (A PDF of the post is embedded below, or it you prefer, the Pastebin file is here.)(h/t Gateway Pundit). I confess to no great familiarity with Anonymous, and I certainly share the expectation that there will be no indictment of Officer Wilson (on what evidence?), but I also feel obliged to note that I find the overall tone of the post to be lacking in credibility. For one thing, more than half of the post is spent not discussing the evidence on which the Grand Jury might be basing it's decision--indeed, evidence is not mentioned at all--but rather is devoted to discussion of Wilson personally in the period following the shooting of Mike Brown. Claiming, for example, that he still lives in the area, that he has just closed on a home, that his girlfriend is newly pregnant with their first child, that he has changed his appearance.  None of that could have the slightest relevance in the grand jury's considerations.

Posted by Amy Miller on October 24, 2014 39 Comments
We have reported extensively on the ongoing tension in Ferguson, Missouri following the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown. Most recently, it was revealed that the shooting was not an act of random racial violence, but a likely act of self-defense. That hasn't stopped the NGOs from marching in with their reports, though. A recent report from Amnesty International accuses members of the Ferguson police department of committing human rights abuses as they attempted to control protests in the wake of the shooting. Via Reuters:
The Amnesty International report said law enforcement officers should be investigated by U.S. authorities for the abuses, which occurred during weeks of racially charged protests that erupted after white Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown, 18, on Aug. 9. The use by law enforcement of rubber bullets, tear gas and heavy military equipment and restrictions placed on peaceful protesters all violated international standards, the group said. Amnesty said it sent a delegation to Ferguson from Aug. 14-22 to monitor the situation. ... The report also criticizes a Missouri law that the group said may be unconstitutional because it allows police to use deadly force against someone even if there is no imminent threat of harm. The report calls on state lawmakers to make Missouri law comply with international standards making lethal force by police a last resort, said Rachel Ward, director of research at Amnesty International. "Lethal force is only to be used to protect life when there is an immediate threat," Ward said. "The Missouri statute goes far beyond that. It is of grave concern."
This is nothing new. The global governance sect has a long history of using "international standards" to strongarm local and/or national governments into ceding their sovereignty to the whims of a constantly changing global order.

Posted by Andrew Branca on October 22, 2014 60 Comments
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has obtained and released the official autopsy report of Mike Brown, the black man shot and killed by Police Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, MO this past August.  (The autopsy report is embedded below.) The item in the report that perhaps sheds the greatest light on the circumstances of the shooting is the evidence that Mike Brown has a gunshot wound to the inside of his right hand near his thumb and palm that appears to be a contact gunshot wound.  This would be consistent with the police narrative that Brown was fighting with Officer Wilson for possession of his service pistol when the shot was fired. Gunpowder stippling is typically indicative of the distance between the muzzle of a fired gun and the gunshot wound caused by the projectile.  If the shot is fired at close distance (inches to feet) there is typically unburned gunpowder that causes an observable stippling on the victim's skin.  When the shot is fired from a greater distance (several feet or further) the unburned gunpowder generally does not reach the victim's skin, and thus there is no stippling. Somewhat counterintuitively, however, there is another type of gunshot wound in which no stippling is found.  In a contact gunshot wound, in which the muzzle is in contact with the victim's skin, the unburned gunpowder simply enters the wound along with the projectile.  Because the powder does not contact the skin, there is no skin stippling in a contact gunshot wound.  A contact gunshot wound also typically cause a star-like burst or fragmentation of skin at the site of injury, as the hot gasses propelling the bullet enter and expand within the flesh. The projectile itself, of course, will often fragment skin and bone.

Posted by Andrew Branca on October 17, 2014 84 Comments

A breaking New York Times report sheds new light on Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson's mortal encounter with local Michael Brown.

The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter. The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed. The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown’s blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson’s uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.

According to the New York Times, Wilson told authorities that he fought with Brown for possession of his service pistol, resulting in two rounds fired inside his police vehicle.  One round struck Brown in the arm, and the other was wasted.

Importantly, Brown's blood was found on the gun by forensics analysis, as well as on the inside of the police vehicle, confirming his presence in the vehicle and the weapon.

Wilson said that Brown punched and scratched him numerous times, causing abrasions and swelling to his face and neck.

The officials briefed on the case said the forensic evidence gathered in the car lent credence to Officer Wilson’s version of events. According to his account, he was trying to leave his vehicle when Mr. Brown pushed him back in. Once inside the S.U.V., the two began to fight, Officer Wilson told investigators, and he removed his gun from the holster on his right hip. Chief Jon Belmar of the St. Louis County Police Department has said in interviews that Officer Wilson was “pushed back into the car” by Mr. Brown and “physically assaulted.”

The Times goes on to quote Brown's friend Dorian Johnson as a sort of opposing witness to Officer Wilson.

Posted by Andrew Branca on October 16, 2014 112 Comments
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.

Posted by Andrew Branca on October 09, 2014 59 Comments
[UPDATE: An image purporting to be a police report of this shooting event was linked in the comments. I have embedded that image below--thanks Ras.  I can not personally attest to its provenance, but it appears to be of a form I would expect of an actual police report for such an incident.] It's deja vu all over again. A St. Louis police officer working off duty for a private security company shot and killed a black man yesterday.  Protestors gathered quickly, raising concerns of more rioting, looting, and arson threats similar to those that erupted following the shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson, MO. (h/t @nadraenzi) Fox news reports that while working private security the officer approached three men, who ran away. The officer chased one of them, and a physical struggle ensued.  Police officials report that the chased man then presented a pistol and fired three rounds at the officer before his handgun failed.  There are no reports that any of the shots struck the officer. The officer's handgun was made of more reliable stuff, and he fired 17 rounds at his attacker, mortally wounding him. The Fox article goes on to report:
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that people claiming to be relatives of the victim identified him as 18-year-old Vonderrit Myers, Jr. The teenager's mother, Syreeta Myers, told The Associated Press by phone Thursday that her son was holding a sandwich when the officer killed him Wednesday night. [ . . . ] Hours after the shooting, a crowd gathered at the scene. Some people shouted "Hands up, don't shoot" in reference to the fatal shooting in August of an unarmed black man, Michael Brown, by a white police officer. That shooting in Ferguson led to weeks of sometimes violent unrest in the St. Louis suburb. Officer Darren Wilson has not been charged in the shooting. Dotson said some in the crowd late Wednesday shouted obscenities toward officers and damaged police cars. Officers, however, "showed great restraint," he said.

Posted by Andrew Branca on October 05, 2014 47 Comments
Look up irony in the dictionary, and by all rights you should find a footnote pointing to this news story from CBS re: Ferguson MO: "Ferguson residents frustrated over lack of opportunity." The story notes that the previous night was sufficiently quiet--"just eight arrests"--and that the National Guard is pulling out (meaning, productive people are being released to go back to their day jobs.) The irony arose when the reporter spoke to local Ferguson residents.  The common theme among those interviewed was outrage that local businesses--you know, the ones that had been relentlessly looted and vandalized by local residents--had not hurried to rebuild and offer jobs to local residents. Huh.  Who knew that robbing and burning local businesses might prove a disincentive to them investing and hiring in the community! Anybody remember this guy? Beer

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on October 03, 2014 10 Comments
As if the situation in Ferguson, Missouri wasn't bad enough, Code Pink has decided to join the riots and protests. Code Pink infamously dressed as vaginas and paraded around the RNC in 2012. They also protested the maker of my favorite body wash, Ahava, (made in Israel), because it contains "occupied mud." More ominously, Medea Benjamin, the leader of Code Pink, just attended a gathering of anti-Israel groups, including notorious anti-Semites, in Tehran, as reported by Buzzfeed:
A number of American and European antiwar activists and conspiracy theorists have gathered in Tehran for a conference aimed at addressing supposed Zionist control of the United States, according to Iranian press reports and the Anti-Defamation League. Code Pink chief Medea Benjamin, journalist and former Cambodian genocide denier Gareth Porter, conspiracy journalist and 9/11 truther Wayne Madsen, and PressTV contributor Kevin Barrett are all reportedly at the conference. Other reported attendees include Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, the anti-Semitic French comedian whose performances have been banned in several French jurisdictions, several Holocaust deniers, and former congressman Mark Siljander, who pleaded guilty in 2010 to being an unregistered foreign agent for an Islamic charity that the government said was connected to terrorism.
Capitalizing on the two month anniversary of the death of Michael Brown, Code Pink is among the groups organizing a Weekend of Resistance, and is equating Ferguson to Gaza:

Posted by Andrew Branca on September 04, 2014 46 Comments
A self-described "avid reader" of Legal Insurrection has asked us to address the issue of the confidentiality of Mike Brown's juvenile criminal record (if any), and whether these are likely to be released to the press and public. Disclaimer: Neither I nor Legal Insurrection knows with certainty whether Mike Brown even has a juvenile criminal record, nor (if such exists) what offenses might have been charged or adjudicated in such a record.  It appears that early internet claims that Brown's juvenile record contained a serious felony were in error. The collected information released by various government actors (or refused to be discussed, as by Brown family lawyers) can be interpreted to suggest that a juvenile record exists, but that it does not contain any serious felonies.  For purposes of the following discussion I will assume this to be the case. Make no mistake, however: our knowledge of any actual juvenile record of Mike Brown is merely speculative. With that out of the way, let's consider the laws, legal principles, and public policy that govern the confidentiality of such juvenile records in Missouri.

US Supreme Court: First Amendment, History Require Trials Be Public

In general, trials taking place in court rooms are public events.  In particular, the US Supreme Court has ruled that absent some compelling counter interest the press cannot be denied access to a criminal trial. See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (US Supreme Court 1980).  There the Court wrote:
The right to attend criminal trials is implicit in the guarantees of the First Amendment: without the freedom to attend such trials, which people have exercised for centuries, important aspects of freedom of speech and of the press could be eviscerated.

Posted by Andrew Branca on September 01, 2014 21 Comments
A report from NBC news indicates that police officers in Ferguson, Missouri are being equipped with on-body cameras in the aftermath of the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson. The picture above captures an example of footage from this type of camera at the moment an equipped officer (not from Ferguson) was assaulted by a suspect, thus supporting the officer's responsive use of force against the suspect. (Video below the fold.) I first came across one of these devices when cough, cough a "friend" of mine was pulled over for speeding in New Hampshire maybe three years ago. (Yes, my "friend" was on his motorcycle at the time.) The officer approached and immediately pointed out that he was wearing the camera, and asked if it was OK for our interaction to be recorded. Naturally, I said yes. I was frankly surprised he asked---or at least went through the motions of asking---for my permission. This was NOT a major city in New Hampshire, which are tough to come by in the "Live Free or Die" state under the best of circumstances, so even small New England towns have been making use of these cameras for some years now. Today they are apparently used by over 1,000 departments, and at a cost of about $300, it seems a worthwhile investment for most ANY department. Officers are equipped with body armor to protect them against physical attacks; they ought to be similarly equipped with on-body cameras to protect against false claims of legal liability. Below follows the NBC video report.

Posted by Andrew Branca on August 31, 2014 140 Comments
One of the most common laments to come out of Ferguson these last days has been that surely it was outrageous for Office Darren Wilson to use his service pistol to shoot an "unarmed" Mike Brown.  (Earlier iterations of this narrative went further in their misinformation, describing the 18-year-old 6'4" 292 pound Brown as a "kid" or "child," as well as falsely claiming that Wilson shot Brown in the back, but such misinformation falls outside the scope of this post.)  Similar arguments were made in the context of the shooting by George Zimmerman of the "unarmed" Trayvon Martin. The notion that a defender may use a firearm in self-defense only if they themselves are faced with a firearm is entertainingly naive, but has no basis in actual law, nor in common sense. In the eyes of the law a gun is not some magical talisman of power, it is merely one of perhaps an infinite number of means of exerting force.  Legally speaking the law tends to divide force into two broad buckets:  non-deadly force and deadly force.  There is some stratification in the context of non-deadly force--a poke to the chest is not the same degree of non-deadly force as a punch to the face--but really none whatever in the context of deadly force.  Deadly force is simply deadly force. For purposes of conciseness, I limit this discussion to cases in which deadly force is involved, as was the case in both Ferguson and Zimmerman.

Deadly Force: Force Likely to Cause Death or Grave Bodily Harm

Posted by Amy Miller on August 31, 2014 37 Comments
The riots in Ferguson may have subsided, but the legal battle brewing between protesters and city officials may rekindle racial tensions and bring the St. Louis area back into the spotlight. From the ABA Journal:
Five protesters are suing the city of Ferguson and St. Louis County, Missouri, as well as their police chiefs, based on allegations that they were subject to excessive force and false arrest, among other things. ... Two plaintiffs, a woman and her son, 17, claim that they were wrongfully arrested for failure to disperse at a Ferguson McDonald’s restaurant, which they visited after attending an AME Church “Peace and Love rally.” Another plaintiff arrested for failure to disperse stated that after riding the bus to visit his mother, police shot him with rubber bullets as he attempted to avoid a blocked street. ... Justin Cosma, a Ferguson police officer, is also named as defendant in the case.
Specifically, the Ferguson protesters are suing for false arrest, negligent supervision (of the police departments by the City of Ferguson and St. Louis,) intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery, and two separate civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: deprivation of civil rights, and failure of the police department to train, supervise, and discipline its officers. The suit seeks over $40 million in damages, and plaintiffs' attorneys say that new defendants may be added at any time. This won't be the first time that police officers in Ferguson have come under fire after alleged civil rights violations. Several officers associated with the department have a history of trouble with allegations of excessive force.
Accessibility by WAH