Posted on 12/31/2016 9:02:26 AM PST by Olog-hai
Michael Brown’s parents are objecting to a request from Ferguson for their son’s medical and academic records as the city defends itself against a lawsuit the parents filed over the 2014 police shooting death of the unarmed 18-year-old.
Michael Brown Sr. and Lezley McSpadden, in December court filings, asked U.S. District Judge E. Richard Webber in St. Louis to at least limit if not scuttle altogether a push by the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, its former police chief and the officer who shot their son to turn over the documents. The parents say the documents are irrelevant and that the repeated demands for them are harassing and invasive.
Brown’s parents argue in their lawsuit that the death of their son during an August 2014 confrontation with Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson deprived them of financial support through his future potential wages. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
They would have been better off if Obama/Holder/Thomas Perez were still in power when this case came to a head.
I think the “future income” argument is completely legit.
The court should rule that every mini-mart and gas station within a certain radius of the family home send them a monthly stipend. Also, tax every elderly person, woman, and weak-ass sucka in the area. They had it coming.
Do astrophysicists make a lot of money?
Oh, I understand these grieving parents plight. They’re being deprived of the hot loot that St. Michael could have gotten from the friendly neighborhood pawn shop. Poor, poor parents.......s/
“HANDS UP! DON’T SHOOT!” was a complete, total and absolute lie.
TWENTY_FIVE TOP QUOTES FROM THE DOJ’S REPORT ON THE MICHAEL BROWN SHOOTING
(For official DOJ report, Google “DOJ Report on Shooting of Michael Brown PDF.”)
[01] The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not support the conclusion that Wilson’s uses of deadly force were “objectively unreasonable” under the Supreme Court’s definition. (Page 5)
[02] when the store clerk tried to stop Brown, Brown used his physical size to stand over him and forcefully shove him away. (Page 6)
[03] Wilson was aware of the theft and had a description of the suspects as he encountered Brown and Witness 101. (Page 6)
[04] Autopsy results and bullet trajectory, skin from Brown’s palm on the outside of the SUV door as well as Brown’s DNA on the inside of the driver’s door corroborate Wilson’s account that during the struggle, Brown used his right hand to grab and attempt to control Wilson’s gun. (Page 6)
[05] there is no credible evidence to disprove Wilson’s account of what occurred inside the SUV. (Page 7)
[06] autopsy results confirm that Wilson did not shoot Brown in the back as he was running away because there were no entrance wounds to Brown’s back. (Page 7)
[07] witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts (Page 8)
[08] several witnesses stated that Brown appeared to pose a physical threat to Wilson as he moved toward Wilson. (Page 8)
[09] The physical evidence also establishes that Brown moved forward toward Wilson after he turned around to face him. The physical evidence is corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses. (Page 10)
[10] evidence does not establish that it was unreasonable for Wilson to perceive Brown as a threat while Brown was punching and grabbing him in the SUV and attempting to take his gun. (Page 11)
[11] Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses (Page 12)
[12] Wilson’s account was consistent with those results, and consistent with the accounts of other independent eyewitnesses, whose accounts were also consistent with the physical evidence. Wilson’s statements were consistent with each other in all material ways, and would not be subject to effective impeachment for inconsistencies or deviation from the physical evidence.8 Therefore, in analyzing all of the evidence, federal prosecutors found Wilson’s account to be credible. (Page 16)
[13] Witness accounts suggesting that Brown was standing still with his hands raised in an unambiguous signal of surrender when Wilson shot Brown are inconsistent with the physical evidence, are otherwise not credible because of internal inconsistencies, or are not credible because of inconsistencies with other credible evidence. (Page 78)
[14] Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson’s account and are consistent with the physical evidence. (Page 78)
[15] several of these witnesses stated that they would have felt threatened by Brown and would have responded in the same way Wilson did. (Page 82)
[16] there are no witnesses who could testify credibly that Wilson shot Brown while Brown was clearly attempting to surrender. (Page 83)
[17] There is no witness who has stated that Brown had his hands up in surrender whose statement is otherwise consistent with the physical evidence. (Page 83)
[18] The media has widely reported that there is witness testimony that Brown said “don’t shoot” as he held his hands above his head. In fact, our investigation did not reveal any eyewitness who stated that Brown said “don’t shoot.” (Page 83)
[19] Wilson did not know that Brown was not armed at the time he shot him, and had reason to suspect that he might be when Brown reached into the waistband of his pants as he advanced toward Wilson. (Page 84)
[20] Wilson did not have time to determine whether Brown had a gun and was not required to risk being shot himself in order to make a more definitive assessment.
[21] In addition, even assuming that Wilson definitively knew that Brown was not armed, Wilson was aware that Brown had already assaulted him once and attempted to gain control of his gun. (Page 85)
[22] Wilson has a strong argument that he was justified in firing his weapon at Brown as he continued to advance toward him and refuse commands to stop, and the law does not require Wilson to wait until Brown was close enough to physically assault Wilson. (Page 85)
[23] we must avoid substituting our personal notions of proper police procedure for the instantaneous decision of the officer at the scene. We must never allow the theoretical, sanitized world of our imagination to replace the dangerous and complex world that policemen face every day.” (Page 85)
[24] “It may appear, in the calm aftermath, that an officer could have taken a different course, but we do not hold the police to such a demanding standard.” (citing Gardner v. Buerger, 82 F.3d 248, 251 (8th Cir. 1996) (same))). Rather, where, as here, an officer points his gun at a suspect to halt his advance, that suspect should be on notice that “escalation of the situation would result in the use of the firearm.” Estate of Morgan at 498. An officer is permitted to continue firing until the threat is neutralized. See Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 2022 (2014) (“Officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended”). For all of the reasons stated, Wilson’s conduct in shooting Brown as he advanced on Wilson, and until he fell to the ground, was not objectively unreasonable and thus not a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. (Page 85)
[25] Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of Witness 101, there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. (Page 86)
For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed.
Yup when you open Pandora’s box of a law suit sometimes they boomerang.
Same thing happened in the Trayvon Martin shooting case.
Like everybody expects their kids to support them. What planet are these people from? His future wages were only going to come from his continued illegal activities, and accepting that money would be a crime. Once a thug, always a thug.
Do the crime-—file a lawsuit-—HAVE to have discovery for both sides.
Welcome to reality. Maybe IF Michael hadn’t been such a punk, you wouldn’t be arguing with justice officials to hide his history.
How does a jury or court figure out what the income of a criminal would be in his future???
No sympathy here.
Fake News about the fake gentle giant
How much money are we talkin’ about?
If he’d won the lottery, they’d be living on easy street in their retirement.
C’mon Big Sam, pay up!!!
The Brown family ought to be paying royalties to Darren Wilson. Michael Brown was truly worth more dead than alive.
The parents may have had a tough case even if Michael Brown was a model citizen earning a huge income as an investment banker, and the shooting was unjustified by any objective measure. I’m not sure how Missouri law works, but in some jurisdictions a parent has no standing to make a claim on a child’s future earnings — only the spouse and dependent children of the deceased do.
Future potential wages...
A pack of swishers, a bag of skittles and some cough syrup.
Thanks for the info. I hope this blows up in their faces. The only time I’ve come across parents being able to make a claim on a deceased child’s benefits was during research into Civil War military pensions. If the mother or father could show that they had depended on their son sending home his military pay during his service, they could possibly get a monthly benefit from the government.
All is pertinent in a civil suit for damages, especially with the taxpayer dollar on the line.
We want to make the necessary changes so we can prove he was innoscent
He promised he’d share half of his stolen Swisher Sweets and Slim Jims with his family. Now they ain’t got no smokes or beef sticks. Where be the justice?!?
There just ain’t no justice, is there?
“Why this suit wasn’t run through the shredder by the court the day it arrived”
Good point. My thought is that the various branches of government are better served by dragging it out, as long as possible, possibly offering a small settlement, just before the trial. The cost, financial, and emotional, to that community was devastating. Better to let that unjustified anger dissipate, and offer a small appeasement, than to risk the embers that still are being stoked, result in another conflagration. Just my two cents, thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.