<p>People who are excerpting sources–please include citations. It’s kind of hard to evaluate them without.</p>
<p>Bottom line is that Michael Brown and his friend were directed by a police officer to move out of the middle of street so traffic didn’t have to go around them. They didn’t feel like doing so. I think the medical examiners reports and the emergency room reports on Wilson are enough to confirm that Wilson was attacked and that there was a struggle involving his gun. That’s enough for reasonable people to conclude Wilson was in fear for his life. And that is really the only question that the grand jury had to be concerned with.</p>
<p>It’s very easy for people sitting in the safety of their own homes to opine on how the situation could have been handled differently. If someone the size of Michael Brown attacks me and I have a gun, I am going to use it. I don’t care if he is white, black or purple.</p>
<p>I agree that it’s certainly possible that the case wasn’t prosecuted the right way before the Grand Jury. However, I also think that this case shouldn’t have been taken before the Grand Jury and wouldn’t have without the publicity. </p>
<p>I don’t think you could effectively discredit the forensic evidence. Maybe the forensic experts should not have been put on the stand? Would a grand jury indict without forensic evidence that clearly could have been obtainable? Also, maybe he should have cherrypicked the witnesses. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From Washinton Post linked in post #609. Here it is again,</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/?hpid=z4”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/?hpid=z4</a></p>
<p>I am going off topic here. I just wonder if our lack of science education affects our national dialogue. People react more emotionally and quick to overlook forensic evidence, that sciency thing.</p>
<p>
Well, we are citizen’s in a free country who are allowed to question authority, that’s who! </p>
<p>So we should all just sit back and accept any officer’s story when he states that he was in fear for his life? If your child was on the other end of that fearful officer’s gun, you would be okay with that? </p>
<p>Even if you accept that Brown initiated the fight in the car, reached for Wilson’s gun and then ran, it is really hard for me to accept that Brown then turned (already having been shot once) and “charged” Wilson. I just don’t buy it and there are witness statements that say that he turned with his hands at shoulder height, palms facing out and took several slow steps backward before the fatal series of shots were fired. That witness testimony alone, to me, is reason to indict.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As to me, I always thought that the prosecutor was unable to be unbiased, and should have stepped down. I think the length and content of the speech McCullough gave when he announced no indictment, a speech that sounded exactly like the defense attorney’s summation, demonstrated exactly why there should have been a trial.</p>
<p>If there were a trial, I think Wilson would have been acquitted. But there is a wide gulf between enough evidence to indict and enough evidence to convict. There was enough evidence to indict, and we should have had a trial. Grand juries are not trial juries. We needed an adversarial proceeding, and we didn’t get one.</p>
<p>You do know some witness testimonies were withdrawn. According to ballistics, shots fired outside of the car are consistent with someone firing while retreating. If Brown was surrendering, why would Wilson retreat? And was the fatal shot downward?</p>
<p>From Washington Post,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting. I find it very easy to believe that a kid who robs and returns to physically intimidate a store owner and grabs a cops gun would be all in to continue his assault of the officer since at that point he already has nothing left to lose. On the other hand, that a cop who just got on duty 2 minutes before the shooting decides that the middle of the day on weekend with plenty of witnesses hanging around would be a fine time to finally kill a black kid is a tougher one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wasn’t that what Grand Jury tried to decide, to indict or not? They concluded not.</p>
<p>A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. Equally, a prosecutor can fail to return an indictment if he doesn’t want an indictment.</p>
<p>I don’t think that any is suggesting that Wilson made a conscious decision to kill a black kid that day and the implication that posters are suggesting that is just dismissive of any meaningful dialogue here.</p>
<p>What I am suggesting is that Brown, after having been shot once, was running away from the officer. I find it hard to believe that would turn and charge Wilson. What would he have to lose, you ask? Well, everything. My gut tells me that was running away in fear and was afraid of being shot in the back so he turned and held his hands up in a gesture of surrender. Wilson shot him in an adrenalin fueled rage. That’s my opinion. </p>
<p>And I thought that it was determined that the last, fatal shot was to the top of Brown’s head at a downward angle. i could be wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What if he trusted the officer’s account of the event? Was he not allowed to believe him even if he’s right? Should we require prosecutors always indict an officer as a matter of routine?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I believe that’s the case indicating that Brown had his head bend down as in charging. I believe ballistics don’t suggest Brown was slowly backing out. You can send your disagreements to Paul Cassell at WashPo. He promised he’d look into it.</p>
<p>Murder requires a conscious decision to kill. People want this cop indicted for murder.</p>
<p>And, an 18 year old angry young man who doesn’t want to go to jail is not worried about death. That’s just part of the invincible thinking of youth and it’s unfortunate. But, after all of those preliminary shots failed to stop him I don’t know why he would suddenly decide to surrender. Anyway, black witnesses and more importantly the physical evidence show that the fatal shot was fired at 8 - 10 feet as the suspect was moving forward toward the officer. That was also reported on day one but mostly dismissed.</p>
<p>The idea that Brown was charging Wilson, looking down at the ground, with his head at the level of Wilson’s chest (they were the same height), sounds implausible to me. I thought the last, killing shot being to the top of the head indicated the victim was falling because he’d already been shot. That doesn’t persuade me, one way or the other, whether the shooting was justified. If someone is shot several times, he will fall down, whether the shooting is justified or not.</p>
<p>Wilson’s story that Brown was charging him while simultaneously reaching for a gun he didn’t have seems implausible, though.</p>
<p>That’s two separate events, Brown reached for the gun while Wilson was in the car. That is pretty much established, Brwon had gun residue on his thumb/hand, two bullet casings near the car, Brown’s skin piece was recovered from the car. The controvercy is more on Brown turning around and charging Wilson. Brown was 153’ away from Wilson at the time of his death. I am sure someone can look at the autopsy charts more closely and confirm one way or other. </p>
<p>Here’s the autopsy chart,</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/ferguson-documents/”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/ferguson-documents/</a></p>
<p>What the autopsies revealed
Three autopsies were done on Michael Brown’s body, and all agree on the number and location of wounds, according to St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch. He said Brown had nine wounds caused by seven or eight bullets. None came from behind.</p>
<p>First Shot: One wound, likely the first, grazed Brown’s right thumb. Soot in the wound indicated that the shot was fired from a close range, probably during the struggle inside the police SUV.</p>
<p>Bending Forward: Wounds to the upper right chest, forehead and top of the head were consistent with Brown being bent forward at the waist.</p>
<p>Fatal Shot: The wound to the top of his head was likely the last and fatal shot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Completely agree.</p>
<p>
This is also a viable explanation for what happened. But of course the officer has now had three months to concoct a story that supports his version of events, and at this point there is no jury trial scheduled that would bring ALL the evidence to light and allow Wilson to be cross-examined. </p>
<p>It’s funny that the only people who are 100% opposed to the case going before a jury at trial are those who are convinced of Wilson’s innocence.</p>
<p>Well, what’s surprising about that? It includes the prosecutor, the governor, the police authorities, and the grand jurors and is exactly how the system is supposed to work. People are not prosecuted because maybe a jury will find them guilty and some under-informed members of public want a show trial. Instead, they are prosecuted because there is convincing evidence that a crime was committed. Throw in the fact that cops are allowed to use deadly force in at least two scenarios that could apply in this case and chances of a conviction are slim to none barring a jury nullification such as what happened with the OJ Simpson case where evidence was deemed irrelevant because the jurors hated the LAPD. We’re going backwards, here. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are plenty of us “sciencey” people (you know, the ones with advanced degrees and doctorates in science) who are not satisfied with this grand jury verdict either. You forget - “sciencey” people are also trained to be skeptical, to look at all sides of a problem, and to question authority. Not all forensic evidence is fact, and forensic experts should be subjected to intense questioning and cross-examination…</p>