Ferguson, MO

[fred rosenberger]

I live in St. Louis County, about 10 miles from Ferguson.

I'm curious how this story is portrayed elsewhere. What have you heard? What do you think of a) the shooting, b) the grand jury ruling, c) the riots/violence that happened last night (and is allegedly going to be worse tonight)?

I've tried to keep up on the story, and my wife is a lawyer who has worked both sides of the courtroom, so I'll reserve my thoughts until I hear from a few others.

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

Fred,
Since opinions are so heavily dependent on facts; I'm writing down my understanding of the facts and my opinion for each:

a) the shooting
Facts: An unarmed 18 year old black male was killed by the police. There was some debate about whether he looked like he was going for a gun.
Opinion: This is a terrible thing. Even if he was going for a gun, that explains shooting him once or twice. Not what actually happened. Not that it is good to be trigger happy, but I can understand how the police might have felt threatened and gotten one or two shots in. My problem is that once he was shot once, he clearly wouldn't be charging at the police anymore and wouldn't be reaching for a gun. He'd be reacting to being hurt. The second shot I'm willing to understand is because there is reaction time to see if the first shot hit. [I've never fired a gun; I don't know how long this would take].

b) the grand jury ruling
Facts: Yesterday, there was an announcement of the ruling. They waited until 8pm local time to start announcing and announced at about 8:30 local time that there was no indictment. Which means the police officer won't be tried. The main driver for that decision was the conflicting eyewitness accounts.
Opinion: The guy announcing the decision took a very long time to speak. I don't know if he was doing that to calm people down or explain extra or what. Assuming the facts are true that eyewitnesses kept changing their story, I don't think they had a choice to rule any way other than how they did. I also think that the local police could use more training regardless of the outcome, but you didn't ask about that. And not that it is the kids fault, but also train the community in outreach. I recently went to "Active Shooter" training. They covered that the police doesn't know who the shooter is when they come in so you should put your hands up while explaining and not gesture. Because until they find the shooter, they don't know who is a threat. Granted the community shouldn't have to do this, but there is a problem. And better to raise one's hands an err on the side of caution.

c) the riots/violence
Facts: In Ferguson, there were violent protests yesterday evening/overnight including looting, burning down stores and throwing things at the police. Other cities including NYC had peaceful marches/protests.
Opinion: I'm not clear on whether any people were injured. I haven't read the paper yet. [my facts are from the radio this morning and the paper last night]. Regardless, the violence seems foolish for two reasons. Against the police, violence reinforces that the police should be wary of the community. Second, aren't the stores that were looted/burned down owned by black people? This seems like hurting the community.

Another thing you didn't ask about, but I have trouble understanding why there aren't more black police officers in Ferguson. (I also haven't looked into it.) In New York, we have plenty of black cops.

[Paul Clapham]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:why there aren't more black police officers in Ferguson.

As I understand it, this is the result of the main problem there, which to put it bluntly is racism. All of the legal issues you talked about are just symptoms. It's nice to talk about how those things should be handled in a civilized manner, and they should, but it's like putting barbecue sauce on rotten meat.

[fred rosenberger]

Here's what I know. Bob McCulloch is the Prosecuting Attorney for St. Louis County. He is the guy who gave the press conference announcing the verdict.

As I understand it:

Just prior to being shot, Michael Brown (the victim) was at the side of the car. The forensic evidence shows that he had reached into the car, and there was a struggle. Mr. Brown had a bullet graze his left(?) thumb. Powder residue in the wound proved his hand was close to the weapon at the time of discharge, and the bullet was found lodged in the inside of police car door. Michael Brown's blood was also found inside the car. So he and officer Wilson struggled for control of the gun at some point.

Mr. Brown then fled. Officer Wilson pursued on foot. I don't know how far they went, but at some point, Mr. Brown did turn around.

It becomes much fuzzier here. Different witnesses claim different things. Some claim Mr. Brown stood there with his hands up, some claim he made furtive gestures, some claimed he charged the office with fists waving.

All the above occurred in under 90 seconds. Mr. Brown was also known to the officer. A radio report had just come across saying a man matching Mr. Brown's physical description and clothing had just committed a strong-arm robbery of a local store.

Officers are trained that when they fire their weapon, they do so to put their target down. They don't fire a shot or two, evaluate "Did I hit this person? Are they stopping? Should I keep firing or not?". They are trained to keep shooting until the person is DOWN. The last shot fired hit Mr. Brown in the top of the head, "...consistent with someone falling forward". So Mr. Brown was still up and moving - even if only falling forwards - through the last shot fired by Officer Wilson. I have also never fired a gun, but I have been told that the 8 shots fired would take only a few seconds. From what I've seen of semi-automatic weapons, that seems reasonable.

My problem is that once he was shot once, he clearly wouldn't be charging at the police anymore

I don't think this is true. i've often heard that one doesn't immediately feel anything when receiving a wound. If the shots only took a few seconds from first to last, he may have still been moving towards the officer.

The Grand Jury Ruling
The purpose of a grand jury is not to determine innocence or guilt. It is to decide if there is enough evidence to bring charges. In fact, the defense does not even get to show up. Only the prosecution puts on evidence, and the Supreme Court has ruled that even if the prosecution has exculpatory evidence, they don't need to present that to the grand jury. So I don't understand why McCulloch put on all this evidence for the defense. He allowed the trial to take place in the Grand Jury - which is NOT its purpose.

The riots/violence
This is deplorable. I don't think anyone was injured Monday evening (apart from tear gas burning eyes). Last night (Tuesday) was more peaceful, at least from what I've heard so far.

Depending on who you talk to, the violent protesters are not from Ferguson, but from the larger surrounding area.

Black Police officers in Ferguson
The Ferguson Chief (who is white) talked about this a few months ago. He said they don't get many (any?) black applicants. Perhaps they could do a better job of trying to recruit, but so many people in the community have been persecuted by the police for so long, they don't trust them. Why would they join an organization that they believe (rightly or wrongly) has oppressed them for so long?

[fred rosenberger]

Washington Post article on the prosecution doing a terrible job.

[Ulf Dittmer]

I just read summaries of two witness accounts, http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side and http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7287443/dorian-johnson-story. Assuming those summaries are correct, then both accounts corroborate one another in some points, before diverging significantly, with Mr Johnson's account seeming to make more sense.

If the job of the grand jury is merely to decide whether to bring charges, then I'm not sure whether these discrepancies rise to the standard required to do that. But it seems to me that someone (the prosecution, the grand jury, a criminal trial) should have looked, or should be given a chance to look, into the inconsistencies.

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

fred rosenberger wrote:The Ferguson Chief (who is white) talked about this a few months ago. He said they don't get many (any?) black applicants. Perhaps they could do a better job of trying to recruit, but so many people in the community have been persecuted by the police for so long, they don't trust them. Why would they join an organization that they believe (rightly or wrongly) has oppressed them for so long?

To make things better? Yeah, I know that is wishful linking. An entry level cop wouldn't have that much power.

Ulf: those links were very interesting.

[Paul Clapham]

My take on the issue is this: It's nice that at least one person is getting a thorough and respectful process. But that's really just theatre which distracts attention from the hundreds or thousands of other people who were treated in a thoroughly disrespectful way, so I'm not really interested in paying much attention to it.

But I suppose we have to wait until this process plays out before anybody can stand up and say "Okay, we need to fix the way things have been done around here".

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

Respectful? It feels like a media circus.

[Paul Clapham]

Yes, okay, the media is circusizing it, but the process he's getting in the courts can't be faulted.

[Paul Anilprem]

fred rosenberger wrote:I live in St. Louis County, about 10 miles from Ferguson.

I'm curious how this story is portrayed elsewhere. What have you heard? What do you think of a) the shooting, b) the grand jury ruling, c) the riots/violence that happened last night (and is allegedly going to be worse tonight)?

I've tried to keep up on the story, and my wife is a lawyer who has worked both sides of the courtroom, so I'll reserve my thoughts until I hear from a few others.

I have followed news on this tragedy closely (on CNN, I must clarify) and the one thing that is common among this and other similar shootings by LE is that it seems like the police in US shoots with the intention to simply kill instead of disabling the offender. There seems to be no other explanation for firing so many shots even after knowing that the person is already hit. Now whether this is because of how the police are trained, because of racism, or because of some psychological issue created by the situation, I don't know but it doesn't behoove a developed and advanced society like US.

It is difficult to determine whether the cop who shot was or was not guilty of any wrongdoing but the system definitely seems to be guilty. res ipsa loquitur.

[Ulf Dittmer]

Some choice quotes from an interesting writeup on the decision:

How surprised should we be that a grand jury in Missouri failed to indict a police officer for killing an unarmed black man? In one sense, very surprised ... At the same time, we shouldn't be at all surprised by the grand jury's verdict.

White Americans need to recognise that if black Americans mistrust the police, they often have good reason to do so. ... It makes it impossible for citizens to trust that in any given failure to prosecute, justice was done.

[Campbell Ritchie]

Paul Anilprem wrote: . . . it seems like the police in US shoots with the intention to simply kill instead of disabling the offender. . . .

I suspect that is how they are trained. If somebody has a gun and is threatening to shoot you, only the Lone Ranger can shoot the gun out of his hand. If you simply injure the other chap he will have all the more reason for shooting you.

[Campbell Ritchie]

If the dead person really was unarmed, it would appear to me that murder has actually taken place, however.

What makes you think it is black people in USA who don't trust the police? The black people in parts of UK don't trust them either.

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

Campbell Ritchie wrote:If the dead person really was unarmed, it would appear to me that murder has actually taken place, however.

In the United States, the definition of murder says the act must be pre-medidated. I think everyone would agree that the cop didn't wake up and decide to kill someone. So it isn't murder.

[fred rosenberger]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:In the United States, the definition of murder says the act must be pre-medidated. I think everyone would agree that the cop didn't wake up and decide to kill someone. So it isn't murder.

Pre-meditation is "first degree" - the most serious.

Then there is second degree murder, which is (i THINK) something like "intentionally trying to harm someone and the end up dying".

there is also "voluntary manslaughter" and "involuntary manslaughter", each less serious than the one before (unless you are the victim).

I'm still reading a lot on this case. From what I can tell, a police officer is allowed to shoot if he has "a reasonable belief" the suspect intends him harm. That is key here. The victim doesn't have to ACTUALLY intend harm, it's just the officer has to BELIEVE he does.

And the evidence corroborates the testimony that Mr. Brown made an effort to get the officer's gun away from him. Having someone - someone known to have just c omitted a robbery - try to take your gun from you is going to influence your beliefs of what they intend to do.

all that aside, I don't understand why McCulloch presented ALL the evidence. The prosecutors job is to represent the victims - not present exculpatory evidence and wash their hands of it all.

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote: I think everyone would agree that the cop didn't wake up and decide to kill someone. So it isn't murder.

Or not.

[Campbell Ritchie]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote: . . . Or not.

I would find it hard to believe that is a 100% disinterested opinion.

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

Campbell Ritchie wrote:

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote: . . . Or not.

I would find it hard to believe that is a 100% disinterested opinion.

Clearly. I made the mistake of saying "everyone" though. It only takes one exception to that for my statement to be false. I was remarking that I should have said *almost* everyone.

[Campbell Ritchie]

fred rosenberger wrote: . . . Having someone . . . known to have just c omitted a robbery - try to take your gun from you is going to . . .

. . . turn it into self‑defence.

[Campbell Ritchie]

I didn't realise that “or not” was supposed to negate “everyone”.