Posted on 11/29/2014 9:50:31 AM PST by SeekAndFind
There were no surprises to come out of Ferguson, Mo., last week. Neither the grand jury’s decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown, nor the riot that decision engendered was unexpected by anyone with even a modest familiarity with the matter. And just as predictable has been the left’s attempt to undermine the former and thereby justify the latter. They are to be excused in their rioting, we are told, for the grand jury’s decision is illegitimate.
To cite but one example of this, we turn to the New Yorker, where people of a leftist persuasion turn for guidance on how to think about current events. In a Nov. 25 post at the magazine’s website [1], legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin criticizes St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch for what Toobin sees as a failure to follow the “customary rules” of his profession. “If McCulloch’s lawyers had simply pared down the evidence to that which incriminated Wilson,” Toobin writes, “they would have easily obtained an indictment.”
Perhaps so, but an indictment in the case would have led to a trial that McCulloch knew, as Toobin himself should know, would result in Darren Wilson’s acquittal. Reasonable doubt was everywhere in the case, and prosecutors are ethically bound to proceed to trial only if they are confident of their ability to convince twelve jurors that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It wasn’t going to happen.
So, unless the Justice Department brings civil rights charges against Darren Wilson – still a possibility despite little chance of success – he will not face the public criminal trial that Jeffrey Toobin and so many others wished to see. And even a civil trial arising from a wrongful death claim against Wilson and the city of Ferguson is far from a certainty. Yes, there will be a lawsuit, of course, but it will likely be resolved through a settlement rather than a trial. If a trial were to take place, both sides would have much to lose. If a jury finds for the plaintiffs, the city faces the possibility of a multimillion-dollar judgment, and even if it prevailed, the city might face further rioting and disruptive protests. But lawyers representing Michael Brown’s family have risks to weigh as well. In a civil trial, Brown’s juvenile record would almost certainly be introduced. If it revealed serious violations of the law, a jury might be less sympathetic to his family request for damages. And is there anyone who believes he has no juvenile record?
But even as Michael Brown’s death recedes from the front pages, there are still aspects of the case that require examination, not least of which are the tactics employed by Darren Wilson in the moments leading up to the shooting. Though I’m in agreement with the grand jury’s decision in declining to charge Wilson in Brown’s death, it doesn’t mean I agree the shooting was unavoidable. If we imagine a counterfactual scenario and back up, step by step, from the moment the first shot was fired, we can come up with a way in which Michael Brown might have been arrested without the use of deadly force. This is not intended as a criticism of Darren Wilson, but rather as a reminder to police officers who may someday find themselves in a similar situation.
Among my first thoughts on hearing of the Michael Brown shooting was to wonder if the officer was working alone. An article in Police magazine [2] points out that of 536 police officers killed from 2000 to 2009, only about a third were working alone, suggesting that it’s somehow safer to work without a partner. I’m certain that a deeper exploration beyond the raw numbers would show this to be untrue, but let’s examine the issue as it relates to the Darren Wilson-Michael Brown confrontation.
We are told that Wilson was unaware of Brown’s involvement in the convenience store robbery until he had already initiated contact with Brown and his companion, Dorian Johnson. Had Wilson had a partner, there would have been an extra set of ears in the car to monitor the radio traffic, perhaps allowing the officers to learn in advance of the initial contact that they were dealing with robbery suspects rather than simple traffic violators.
But putting that aside, even if our two hypothetical officers had not been apprised of the robbery, they might have taken an extra moment to discuss how they would handle a pedestrian stop of two men, one of whom weighed 300 lbs. And Michael Brown might have been more hesitant to challenge two officers than he was to take on Darren Wilson alone.
Now take a partner officer out of our scenario. How might an officer riding alone have handled the encounter differently? Wilson told the grand jury that his request to Brown and Johnson to get out of the street was met with expletive-laden defiance. Wilson then radioed for backup, as indeed he should have. But rather than wait for that backup to arrive, he reversed his car and pulled within a few feet of Brown and Johnson, thus giving Brown the opportunity to attack him. The more prudent course would have been to keep the two men under observation from the relative safety of the police car until other officers arrived, then initiate a stop. Had Brown and Johnson attempted to run away, the officers could have set up a containment perimeter and found them through a systematic search. And even if Brown and Johnson eluded the search, how many people living on Canfield Drive are 6-3 and 300 lbs.?
Again, none of this is to imply that the grand jury reached the wrong decision in declining to charge Darren Wilson. But he made the choice to put himself in a vulnerable position while confronting two men, one of whom outweighed him by 90 lbs. Wilson told George Stephanopoulos his conscience was clear, but I can’t imagine he doesn’t harbor some regret at having placed himself in so precarious a position.
Of course, since we’re indulging in counterfactuals, we can imagine that Michael Brown didn’t rob the store, didn’t walk down the middle of the street, got out of the street when told to, didn’t punch Officer Wilson and try to take his gun, didn’t turn around as he ran away, and did lie on the ground when ordered to.
Change any one of those decisions Brown made and he’d be alive today.
Also read:
I don’t think he would have been too eager to steal a cop’s gun if another cop was right next to him.
“FReeper after FReeper attack me for saying so.”
Feel free to put me on your list. Don’t worry, I won’t try to change your mind. Your kind of stupidity can’t be fixed, so you’re just going to have to live in pain.
Unless you have been in that situation, you don’t know what you would do
The left is attempting to give cover to the ferals that torched Ferguson...
Lol.
Those businesses were already strapped from supporting the entire load themselves. If you want two cops to a car you will have to cough up the cash.
Well, yeah, Einstein, it's there in your sentence. Let me show you: "Fully two-thirds of officers killed from 2000 to 2009 were with a partner." Good analysis right there.
they might have taken an extra moment to discuss how they would handle a pedestrian stop of two men, one of whom weighed 300 lbs
Sounds like profiling! Seriously, though, should Wilson have been fully intending for a struggle for his gun to become the focal point of a simple jaywalking encounter? If so, then why are any cops working alone?
And even if Brown and Johnson eluded the search, how many people living on Canfield Drive are 6-3 and 300 lbs.?
An assumption on the author's part, and probably not a good one.
I can’t imagine he doesn’t harbor some regret at having placed himself in so precarious a position.
Another assumption. I can just as easily imagine that Wilson is still thinking, "Damn, all I did was tell the guy to get out of the middle of the road and use a crosswalk. That was worth what he did?"
This article is fast and loose with assumptions and lacks any decent analysis.
Jack’s a dumbass..... the reason the criminal black thug got shot was because he refused to be arrested.
The death of such an oversize black thug was justice
Not much in the way of a rational deterrent, but having to focus on two cops rather than one might have confused Brown and thrown him off balance.
The author of the article is uninformed of the fact that, according to Wilson, he had heard enough of the call on the strong arm robbery that when he saw the box of cigars and confirmed that Brown’s accomplice wore a black shirt, he did think he was onto the perps of the robbery. Wilson made the judgement that he could delay Brown without needing deadly force until backup arrived. Bad guess, in the event.
Once Wilson learned how dangerous Brown could be, and the rap on Brown was not only strong-arm robbery but also assault and battery on a police officer, he could have wimped out and waited for backup, allowing Brown to leave unchallenged but kicking the can down the road for another officer to possibly get blindsided even worse. He elected not to do that - still hoping that timely backup would arrive and the incident would be contained. He did after all know that another car had already been dispatched to the robbery scene.
And if my Aunt had b@lls, she`d be my Uncle!
You deserved to be attacked for being an idiot on this issue. The Grand Jury and most on FR believe that Wilson did nothing wrong. What is also evident is that you have a very anti-cop bias that muddles your thinking. You cannot hide the fact that it makes you sick to see a cop (like Wilson) exonerated.
well there is plenty of blame to go around that is for sure
How about how he would have been at home packing his bags for college if his parents had stepped up to their responsibility.
I believe you are misinformed.
The prosecutor is NOT obligated to present ANY exculpatory evidence to the jury at trial. He IS obligated to give any exculpatory evidence he possesses to the defense IF they request it, which the defense routinely does. It is then up to the defense to decide which exculpatory evidence, if any, to present to the jury.
All too frequently, the prosecutor will do whatever back-flips he can to hide exculpatory information from the defense (see Mike Nifong). If he gets caught at this, it can be grounds for having the verdict overturned, and in some cases the prosecutor has been held in contempt, although the latter rarely happens.
This trash isn’t worth the pixels it’s written with.
“well there is plenty of blame to go around that is for sure”
NO!
You're right. Couldn't hurt to have two cops instead of just one. Even for a case when a perp seems irrational.
You are correct, of course. I should have said he’s not obligated to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense. Since there is no defense at a grand jury hearing, that doesn’t apply.
Obviously, if the prosecutor had wanted to indict Wilson, he’d have been indicted.
That is the umpteenth time I’ve read concerning an incident where a white cop killed a black perp, the cop when sizing up an in progress situation ( a robbery, an assault, etc.) should just either have driven away or waited for help and did nothing until help arrived. Unbelievable.
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.