<p>No. if an officer in the line of duty is in reasonable fear of bodily harm he or she is generally allowed to use deadly force. Good shoot is a cop term. Race is irrelevant. This happens with white suspects as well. Forensics show the suspect in this case was moving toward the officer and the fatal shot hit him at 8 - 10 feet away., Black witnesses supported the cops version of events as did the physical evidence.</p>
<p>Police are not taught nor should they be in my opinion to shoot to disable. They are instructed to shoot at the torso which is the larget target area.</p>
<p>I will repeat that I do believe there is a problem with law enforcements treatment of young AA males however with the evidence presented I do not feel this case is reflective of that. officer Wilson should not be scapegoated for all the past ills of law enforcement. Many are making the case that law enforcement profiles AA males and that is wrong. In my opinion it is equally wrong to target Wilson for the bad acts commited by police in the past also.</p>
<p>There was significant evidence that he acted in defense based on the forensic evidence. The GJ found no reason to indict. </p>
<p>bodily harm…or serious bodily harm? It can get awfully tricky drawing line when deadly force can be used legally whether one is a cop or non-cop.</p>
<p>What matters is what’s in the officers mind so it can get tricky and it’s very easy to say you don’t believe he was in fear for is life. And, the benefit of any doubt will usually go to the officer not the suspect which is why they are usually ruled justified in 3 days or so whatever the races of those involved.</p>
<p>In some jurisdictions and Ferguson I believe is one of them they are also allowed to shoot fleeing felons. Obviously, that’s more controversial but that’s not what happened in this case. However, I still don’t think anyone is paying any attention to these details</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The prosecutor was the one questioning him, so that is by definition cross-examination. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The short answer to the question of why police officers don’t shoot to wound is that it’s difficult and the vast majority of highly-trained cops are not John Wayne. Misses go up under durress too. The misses can end up hitting some random person on the street. The limbs are moving at a high rate of speed, making it hard to shoot the legs. Even if you do hit the legs, there is a danger that the bullet can go through and then hurt an innocent bystander, whereas this is less likely if you shoot for the center of mass. The link provided below is very exhaustive and has more details than I am allowed to cut-and-paste here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A prosecutor so widely known for his favorable leniency towards LEOs when trying cases in his career that there were numerous calls for him to recuse himself from the case. </p>
<p>Despite that, he insisted on trying the case and not surprisingly, many people feel the Grand Jury investigation was a “bag job” as a consequence. </p>
<p>Under such dubious circumstances, I wouldn’t be surprised there were serious doubts about the quality and vigor of his “cross-examination”. </p>
<p>This is another instructional video on self-defense with lethal firearms.</p>
<p><a href=“Shooting to Stop the Threat - YouTube”>Shooting to Stop the Threat - YouTube;
<p>To be clear, police can shoot only in 2 cases:</p>
<ol>
<li>To protect their own life or the life of a bystander.</li>
<li>If the fleeing person has committed a violent crime, such as a shooting, and thus constitutes a danger like #1 above. </li>
</ol>
<p>You can look up Tennessee v. Garner in wikipedia. Tennessee law allowed police to shoot fleeing suspects but the court found that killing a person (or shooting them) is a seizure and thus must pass Constitutional standards. In other words, you need a strong reason to take a life. In this case, police on a home burglary call saw a young man - tall enough they thought he was 17 when he was actually 15 - with no weapon running across the yard and stopping in front of the fence. They yelled stop, he started to climb and one of the officers shot him in the head. The Supreme Court found there was no reason to believe the kid was armed and thus killing him was illegal.</p>
<p>“The prosecutor was the one questioning him, so that is by definition cross-examination.”</p>
<p>Oh, you mean the prosecutor who was acting like a defense attorney instead of representing the People? </p>
<p>"The officer’s testimony, delivered without the cross-examination of a trial in the earliest phase of the three-month inquiry, was the only direct account of the fatal encounter. It appeared to form the spine of a narrative that unfolded before the jurors over three months, buttressed, the prosecutors said, by the most credible witnesses, forensic evidence and three autopsies.</p>
<p>But the gentle questioning of Officer Wilson revealed in the transcripts, and the sharp challenges prosecutors made to witnesses whose accounts seemed to contradict his narrative, have led some to question whether the process was as objective as Mr. McCulloch claims."</p>
<p><a href=“Amid Conflicting Accounts, Trusting Darren Wilson - The New York Times”>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/us/ferguson-grand-jury-weighed-mass-of-evidence-much-of-it-conflicting.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a different issue.</p>
<p>However, if strong cross-examination of expert witnesses (e.g., forensic experts) would have made the prosecution’s case stronger, should that witness even been called up to the stand in the first place? If one exists, an expert witness who reached a different conclusion should have been called, if one exists. The problem is finding one. It’s not like we are dealing with blood splatter evidence here which could result in multiple interpretations. </p>
<p>Until everyone stops looking at these cases through a prism of law enforcement is guilty of excess force of AA males or the AA male acted in a manner which created a situation where the LEO was warranted to use deadly force we are going not going to make progress on resolving this issue.</p>
<p>People need to step back and make an honest assessment of each situation. AA males should not be subject to the assumption of guilt but neither should LEO.</p>
<p>“hope that is clearer. That is, if you truly didn’t understand the first time.”
It was clear and it was wrong. I was trying to show you that. The fundamental misunderstanding is that the prosecutor represents the victim. He doesn’t. He represents the state. That is a huge difference and the confusion u undoubtedly causes some of the anger. This is also part of the cause of the victims rights movements because in a criminal situation, the victim is not represented directly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some would argue that considering LEOs are trained, have the automatic benefit of the doubt…especially from those who have the most social capital/power in a given society, have the law and authority of the state behind him/her, and armed with deadly weapons and broad authorization to use them…LEOs SHOULD BE HELD UP TO MUCH HIGHER STANDARDS than the average citizen. </p>
<p>Especially citizens from groups which have historically been subjected to abuses of power and the least amount of social capital in a given society. </p>
<p>“However, if strong cross-examination of expert witnesses (e.g., forensic experts) would have made the prosecution’s case stronger, should that witness even been called up to the stand in the first place? If one exists, an expert witness who reached a different conclusion should have been called, if one exists. The problem is finding one. It’s not like we are dealing with blood splatter evidence here which could result in multiple interpretations.”</p>
<p>The family hired Michael Baden and he did testify.He testified that Brown’s hand were up and that a wound to his chest was an entry wound. </p>
<p><a href=“Pathologist Is Witness in Ferguson Death Inquiry - The New York Times”>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/us/michael-brown-grand-jury-in-ferguson-forensic-pathologist.html</a></p>
<p>However, Dr. Baden was not given information which is normally provided to a forensic pathologist. </p>
<p><a href=“Letter From Dr. Michael Baden | PDF”>Letter From Dr. Michael Baden | PDF;
<p>“People need to step back and make an honest assessment of each situation. AA males should not be subject to the assumption of guilt but neither should LEO.”</p>
<p>An indictment is not an assumption of guilt. It is merely a conclusion that there is probable cause to charge a defendant. </p>
<p>It’s a jury’s job to decide if a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not guilty - not a Grand Jury. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry, tom, but the facts say otherwise.</p>
<p><a href=“The City Where Blacks Suffer Under 'Stop and Frisk on Steroids' - The Atlantic”>The City Where Blacks Suffer Under 'Stop and Frisk on Steroids' - The Atlantic;
<p><a href=“The Case for Police Reform Is Much Bigger Than Michael Brown - The Atlantic”>The Case for Police Reform Is Much Bigger Than Michael Brown - The Atlantic;
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january_february_2014/ten_miles_square/driving_while_black048283.php?page=all”>http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january_february_2014/ten_miles_square/driving_while_black048283.php?page=all</a></p>
<p>And for Ferguson specifically:</p>
<p><a href=“http://ago.mo.gov/VehicleStops/2013/reports/161.pdf”>http://ago.mo.gov/VehicleStops/2013/reports/161.pdf</a></p>
<p>Racial profiling is not only alive and well, but flourishing in many places.</p>
<p>This is also generating outrage and criticism abroad…and not only from longtime traditional critics of the US, but also allies/friends:</p>
<p><a href=“Europe Sees Ferguson Violence as Sign of Poor U.S. Treatment of African-Americans - WSJ”>Europe Sees Ferguson Violence as Sign of Poor U.S. Treatment of African-Americans - WSJ;
<p>I meant it is wrong that AA males are profiled and it is equally wrong to assume that a LEO shot someone without justification. </p>
<p>Both happen and both sides clearly jump to their own conclusion and cherry pick their own set of facts to support their case.
There is profiling and not every LEO that kills an AA male is guilty of doing so because they profiled and held that life in low regard.</p>
<p>We should try to look at these situations with an open mind not a preconceived opinion of 100% certaintity from either side.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Expecting groups who have suffered abuses of power for centuries and continue to suffer to the present time to have an open mind vis a vis those who were and continue to be identified as agents of such abuses is the equivalent of the clueless teachers/educrats telling bullying victims that “You need to be more understanding of your bullies”. </p>
<p>What about the great power disparities in areas ranging from ability to use deadly force to having far greater social capital so LEOs often have the automatic benefit of the doubt in society…especially those with the most social capital and advantages?</p>
<p>In the case of LEOs and marginalized groups…forgetting the memories of historical continuing abuses of power in order to give LEOs the benefit of the doubt or have an “open mind” could mean giving up one tenuous means of trying to survive to live another day. </p>
<p>So are you saying that a law enforcement officer who uses deadly force in a justifiably manner should face a trial because of past injustice?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One of the purposes of having a trial IS to determine whether the LEO’s use of deadly force was justified or not…and to do so in a transparent manner. </p>
<p>That is…assuming the prosecutor and local/state authorities don’t have dubious records of bias in favor of LEOs due to personal history, documented record, or being part of a “good old boys” network. A reason why I’m in favor of having this and other cases like it taken out of the hands of local/regional and in some cases…state government. </p>