<p>I have two boys. More than once I have lectured them that if they are stopped by police for any reason they are to remain still and be completely compliant. Confrontational is not the right attitude! </p>
<p>Police officers live in a world that none of us can fully understand. They are armed for a reason and I cannot imagine having a job where you are always on guard and where your survival instincts are always engaged. These guys receive extensive training on when they can use deadly force. Who are any of us to say Officer Wilson did not feel his life was in danger when Michael Brown reached in to take his gun? That was an extremely aggressive move by someone who had already given the officer reason for concern. If it was you or your husband/wife in Wilson’s position would you still feel that he was not justified? </p>
<p>The minute you start to erode a police officer’s right to defend their own lives, that’s when we are going to have mob rule replace the rule of law. </p>
<p>Do I think there are problems in our nation’s police forces? Absolutely. Those officers in the Staten Island/ Eric Garner case should be indicted. When I see video of officers kicking people on the ground who are clearly no threat, I think they should be held accountable and fired. But I agree with the sentiment expressed by other posters upthread - this is not the case that I would hang my hat on to highlight the use of undue force. Michael Brown is not a sympathetic character and his actions that day were extremely provocative at best. I believe Wilson thought his life was being threatened.</p>
<p>My thought is that more people of color should be recruited as police officers to address the “racially motivated” argument. But I think you will find that officers of color will be just as willing to draw their guns in self defense when faced with what they perceive as a threat to their own lives.</p>
<p>"Police officers live in a world that none of us can fully understand. They are armed for a reason and I cannot imagine having a job where you are always on guard and where your survival instincts are always engaged. These guys receive extensive training on when they can use deadly force. "</p>
<p>Exactly. I’m thinking of the speech in A Few Good Men (right before “you can’t handle the truth”) where Jessup is talking about the things he and his men have to do to keep the rest of us under the blanket of security.</p>
<p>“I have two boys. More than once I have lectured them that if they are stopped by police for any reason they are to remain still and be completely compliant. Confrontational is not the right attitude!”</p>
<p>This is just common sense, and it’s exactly what I’ve taught my (white, upper middle class) son. Yes sir, no sir, thank you sir. </p>
<p>Honestly, the case of the young black kid who was shot with ZERO provocation when he reached for his wallet / license after being directed to by the cop bothers me FAR more than this case. It was captured on videotape and it was very clear he was fully compliant with the officer’s directives. You want to complain about unfair treatment? Take that one to the bank. Not this one.</p>
<p>Many people have made comments towards the idea that Michael Brown is a poor poster child for a movement or his case is the wrong one to rally around. Embedded in this is the mistaken idea that a dead child is on par with the fight for marriage equality where groups could wait for a perfect case with a happily married older couple and a dispute over the “death tax”. What conservative could oppose fair inheritance laws after all? People aren’t sitting around waiting for the perfect death to take to the higher courts. An imperfect person is dead over a box of cigarillos. A bored 12 year old kid is dead over an airsoft gun. The list goes on and on. One more unarmed young person is dead in a situation that escalated from 0 to 60 in no time and people want to know why it seems to keep going down like that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>PG,</p>
<p>Unless my memory of that movie is off, Col. Jessup still ends up arrested after admitting to issuing an illegal order which resulted in the death of a Marine whom he and his gang didn’t care for. </p>
<p>In short, the movie’s seeming point is having a high risk highly dangerous difficult job is no justification nor excuse for issuing or carrying out an illegal order in violation of that deceased Marine’s rights along with the UCMJ or other laws military personnel are obligated to observe. </p>
<p>Ironic that the actual plot of that movie seems to make the opposite argument from the one you’re implying above. </p>
<p>
I fully agree with the first statement. My guess is the second statement may be true as well (even though I am not 100% sure of the second statement – maybe only 70-80% sure for me.</p>
<p>There is still a slight possibility thar, at that moment, not only he feared for his life but also he was enraged after having been provoked by Michael Brown’s extreme behavior. In my life, I have met well too many males who tend to have a very strong “never-even-try-to-mess-up-with-me” personality, even when they are not police. I may be biased, but I think, because of the line of their jobs, more policemen may exhibit such a behavior - especially because they are generally well trained to use firearms and other forces so they know they tend to have the upper hand in most confrontations.)</p>
<p>This was an 18-year old young man on the way home from a robbery who grabbed a law enforcement officers gun which is about the worst thing you can do to cop and is only done if you intend to shoot him or run off with the weapon and use it on someone else later. And, that action and what followed meaning what he did is much more relevant to what happened to him than his skin color. Willfully ignoring all of that to make a point appears somewhat delusional. And. that and a riot is not at all helpful to the cause.</p>
<p>Yes,I know the movie. I’m aware of the plot. I’m talking specifically of the few lines from the speech, not about the plot overall. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only if you accept Wilson’s account of events, which like emilybee, I’m dubious of due to inconsistencies in timeline and how circumstances allowed him time to potentially tailor his account to try explaining them away. </p>
<p>That and he has a strong interest in not being indicted, arrested, and face further judicial scrutiny and the possibility of being convicted…however remote it may be. </p>
<p>A trial would have allowed the very judicial scrutiny to be conducted in greater depth and transparency than the GJ proceeding ran by a DA with a dubious record of favorable leniency towards LEOs turned out to be. Who’s to say there’s not more compelling evidence or that the DA explored the available evidence…especially those unfavorable to Wilson in sufficient depth? By not recusing himself when he was called to do so due to that dubious record along with some troubling irregularities, there’s some serious doubt over the integrity of the GJ proceedings. </p>
<p>The following is not a very scientific argument:</p>
<p>Considering Michael Brown’s behavior at the grocery store where he robbed, and he is 18 yo (not at a more mature age like 30 yo) and he is big and strong, and there is a strong possibility he dislikes a white male in general and a white male cop (or any cop) in particular (because he likely perceives people in his ethnic group are treated badly unfairly), it could be true that he was indeed provocative on that day.</p>
<p>I am not familiar with the pros and cons of the GJ proceedings and have no opinion on that.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I personally am very sympathetic to the victim in the NYC/Slaten Island case. It is clearly police’s “don’t mess with me”/“you shall always follow my direction” ego at play there. (And didn’t the police have any other better thing to do than to find fault with him for such a minor offense even if he really sold the cigarettes?!)</p>
<p>@cobrat “Who’s to say there’s not more compelling evidence or that the DA explored the available evidence……”</p>
<p>If fundamentally you have no confidence in the grand jury process there is little I am going to do to change your mind. But I do think it is important to note that those 12 jurors heard over 70 hours of testimony from over 60 witnesses including experts, medical examiners and Wilson himself. Post #76 provides the NY Times link that compiles all the testimony and documents that were presented to the jury. While I cannot claim to have reviewed it all, it looks pretty comprehensive to me.</p>
<p>But at the end of the day it really does not matter what you or I think about the quality or thoroughness of the evidence, or how good of a job the DA did or didn’t do. That’s not how the system works. The 12 people charged with the duty to review and render a decision on that evidence did so. Having not sat on that panel and heard the 70 hours of testimony, is it your contention that we are somehow more qualified than they to draw a conclusion? Do you think those 12 jurors lacked the capacity to evaluate what was put in front of them? Or are they all just “wrong” because they did not render the decision that some desired?</p>
<p>If you have reviewed all the testimony and evidence linked in post # 76 and feel there is some glaring omission that was not presented, then I am all ears. But to make a blanket statement that Wilson’s account of the events is erroneous or that the DA didn’t “explore the available evidence” seems a bit unfounded. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My understanding is that the vast majority of witnesses, including African Americans, corroborated Wilson’s story to the Grand Jury. People have already talked about the forensics. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That aspect’s not unfounded when you consider his prior personal history and his prior record of trying cases in which LEOs were involved as defendants. In one of the articles posted on this thread, he has had a long history of being favorably lenient towards LEOs as seen here:</p>
<p><a href=“St. Louis prosecutor has faced controversy for decades”>http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/st-louis-prosecutor-has-faced-controversy-for-decades/article_cdd4c104-6086-506e-9ee8-aa957a31fee5.html</a> </p>
<p>“On the other hand, I personally am very sympathetic to the victim in the NYC/Slaten Island case. It is clearly police’s “don’t mess with me”/“you shall always follow my direction” ego at play there. (And didn’t the police have any other better thing to do than to find fault with him for such a minor offense even if he really sold the cigarettes?!)”</p>
<p>It is very easy to be sympathetic to the man in the Staten Island case because there is video showing exactly what happened - making it pretty impossible for the cops in that situation to get away with a lie. And it is not like cops do not lie in these situations, as is evident in the case where the dash board video surfaced after the cop had already given a statement. </p>
<p>“My understanding is that the vast majority of witnesses, including African Americans, corroborated Wilson’s story to the Grand Jury. People have already talked about the forensics.”</p>
<p>The witnesses who’s testimony agreed with the Officers were treated quite differently when they were before the Grand Jury versus the witnesses whose testimony differed. has been reported by multiple sources. </p>
<p>And no, the vast majority of the witnesses testimony didn’t corroborate Wilson’s account. </p>
<p>Chart is in this article with all the witnesses and key points in comparison to Wilson’s. </p>
<p><a href=“5 Key Inconsistencies in What Happened During the Michael Brown Shooting – Mother Jones”>http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/11/inconsistencies-what-happened-during-michael-brown-shooting</a></p>
<p>Yes cops lie and that is why I would like cameras not only on the police cars but also body cameras. I just do not think it is fair to assume every cop is a liar. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really don’t get the blind faith here, or the persistent lack of understanding of the role of a grand jury proceeding. It is HIGHLY irregular to have Wilson appear. There are NUMEROUS gaps in the evidence. There is a DOCUMENTED problem with the prosecuting attorney. And apparently the legal team gave confusing directions to the jury that stood for two months.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“Report: Prosecutors may have misled the Ferguson grand jury about the law for two months - Vox”>Report: Prosecutors may have misled the Ferguson grand jury about the law for two months - Vox;
<p>So the GJ did have the correct standard- are you saying they considered the old standard in their decision?</p>
<p>If you all feel the prosecutor was so compromised he should not have presented at the GJ who would have run a trial if the officer was indicted? Or is the goal an indictment and you would have been fine with a not guily verdict?</p>
<p>No, it’s not fair to assume that, however, a trial where there is vigorous cross examination, imo, is necessary. when a cop kills. It is apparent, by the lack of indictments handed down against police that, in too many cases, police are not held to the same standard of accountability as “civilian” defendants (especially those of color.) They seem to overwhelmingly get the benefit of the doubt - especially when there is no video. </p>
<p>This woman got 20 years for just firing a warning shot. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing/”>Florida woman sentenced to 20 years in controversial warning shot case - CNN;