Much of America, including CNN’s Attorney Sunny Hostin, can’t seem to grasp how Officer Darren Wilson could have been justified in shooting an ostensibly unarmed man. If Ms. Hostin got through law school without learning the definition of “disparity of force,” well, she wouldn’t be the first to do so.
DISPARITY OF FORCE is the legal principle which recognizes that even without a per se weapon, a violent attacker may have such a physical advantage over the intended victim that if the assault is allowed to continue, the totality of the circumstances indicate that the victim is likely to be killed or crippled. This authorizes the victim to use an actual deadly weapon in self-defense. That situation would exist if the attacker was significantly larger and/or stronger than the victim. It would exist if the attacker had complete freedom of movement and leverage, and the victim did not, a situation known as “position of advantage.” Another element that could create disparity of force would be that the victim was already handicapped or injured, even in the course of the instant assault, impairing the victim’s ability to fight back, escape, or evade or block continuing blows. ALL OF THESE WERE PRESENT WHEN THE 292-POUND MICHAEL BROWN WAS SMASHING OFFICER WILSON IN THE HEAD WHILE WILSON HAD VERY LIMITED RANGE OF MOVEMENT INSIDE THE PATROL CAR.
(There are other elements of disparity of force as well, such as male attacking female, multiple assailants attacking lone victim, and more, but none of them seem to have been in play in this encounter.)
This initial attack warranted Wilson drawing his gun and ordering Brown to get back or be shot. Then, Brown went for Wilson’s gun – as proven by bloodstain evidence and Brown’s DNA on the gun – and something else kicked in. BROWN WAS REACHING FOR A GUN, and Wilson testified that Brown had turned the muzzle into Wilson and was trying to pull the trigger when Wilson shot him the first time. This is no longer an unarmed man, it’s a man attempting to kill a cop with his own gun. Thus, shooting him at that point was justified.
Brown ran. Wilson followed police protocol and pursued. He testified that when Brown stopped and turned toward him, one of Brown’s hands went to his waistband as if to draw a gun of his own. This is apparently confirmed by Brown’s bloody handprint on that area of his own clothing. This is what is called a FURTIVE MOVEMENT, in this case a movement consistent with going for a gun and not reasonably consistent with anything else, and at law satisfies the requirement of a reasonable belief that the opponent is armed with a deadly weapon and attempting to draw and use it. This in and of itself, in assaultive circumstances where the opponent is close enough to kill you with such a weapon, justifies deadly force. Simultaneously, he lunged toward Wilson according to the majority of credible eyewitness testimony, consistent with attempting to disarm him again, and was close enough to do so very quickly. It was at this point that Wilson fired his second series of shots – and between the furtive movement and the forward attack, WAS JUSTIFIED IN DOING SO TWICE OVER.
After a short pause, witnesses for the most part agreed, Brown lunged again: another disarming attempt, which again justified shooting. Wilson fired his third and final string of shots, Brown fell, and it was over. Note that each time Brown stopped attacking, Wilson immediately stopped shooting.
These are facts which the grand jury must have taken into consideration. These facts explain why the narrative of “unarmed teen shot by armed jack-booted thug” totally fails the reality test.
Feel free to share with others who, like Attorney Hostin, “just don’t get it” … or, perhaps, don’t want to.
Thanks for shot analysis- I got “lost in the trees” trying to make all of that clear in my mind. Your breakdown also demonstrates the really tactically disastrous situation Wilson had gotten maneuvered into.
I laugh at all the experts who have been critizing Wilson over what he did and insist on showing their ignorance by continuing to run their mouths. As the saying goes “no plan survives contact with the enemy”.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder
I laugh at all the experts who have been critizing Wilson over what he did and insist on showing their ignorance by continuing to run their mouths. As the saying goes “no plan survives contact with the enemy”.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder
Makes perfect sense in the ‘real’ world… Obviously CNN et al don’t live there…
Makes perfect sense in the ‘real’ world… Obviously CNN et al don’t live there…
Thanks for posting this Mas. It’s was good to finally read the true facts in the case which brought the Grand Jury to the right decision not to indict Officer Wilson.
Thanks for posting this Mas. It’s was good to finally read the true facts in the case which brought the Grand Jury to the right decision not to indict Officer Wilson.
Every encounter a police officer has with a citizen has a thousand possible endings. Thankfully, 99+% are peaceful. When they turn confrontational, the officer is behind the eight-ball. His actions are dictated by applying his training and response to the actions of the aggressor. These responses are just that, a response, meaning there is a lag time between stimuli and response. The officer is always at a disadvantage in these scenarios. Time is on the side of the aggressor. The officer also has the burden of knowing that if this confrontation turns bad, every action he takes will be examined under a microscope by people that never faced anything more dangerous than a dull safety razor in their entire life.
You’ve heard folks saying “distance is your friend”. That could not be more true in this confrontation. The aggressor, Brown, in this confrontation had the advantage, initially, from being at less than an arm’s reach when he launched his attack. When Officer Wilson fired the first shot, while Brown was trying to wrest his weapon from his hand, this had the effect of Brown backing off, creating much needed distance. When Brown ran and Officer Wilson pursued, Wilson still had a cushion of distance in his favor. He fired no more shots. Brown stops and turns, Officer Wilson stops, holding fire, maintaining that cushion of distance. Brown, fully aware of his physical superiority, charges Officer Wilson, closing that cushion of distance, intent on again overpowering Officer Wilson. Other than hoping he can outrun Brown, Officer Wilson had no choice but to shoot Brown repeatedly as that cushion of distance evaporated.
Contrary to early false depictions of the distances involved, physical evidence points to Brown collapsing virtually at Officer Wilson’s feet.
If you’ve ever watched hunting shows where a hunter repeatedly fires at an enraged, charging, cape buffalo, having it, thankfully, expire at his feet, you probably expressed a sigh of relief as it finally collapsed. I imagine Officer Wilson experienced similar relief when this threat was stopped
Every encounter a police officer has with a citizen has a thousand possible endings. Thankfully, 99+% are peaceful. When they turn confrontational, the officer is behind the eight-ball. His actions are dictated by applying his training and response to the actions of the aggressor. These responses are just that, a response, meaning there is a lag time between stimuli and response. The officer is always at a disadvantage in these scenarios. Time is on the side of the aggressor. The officer also has the burden of knowing that if this confrontation turns bad, every action he takes will be examined under a microscope by people that never faced anything more dangerous than a dull safety razor in their entire life.
You’ve heard folks saying “distance is your friend”. That could not be more true in this confrontation. The aggressor, Brown, in this confrontation had the advantage, initially, from being at less than an arm’s reach when he launched his attack. When Officer Wilson fired the first shot, while Brown was trying to wrest his weapon from his hand, this had the effect of Brown backing off, creating much needed distance. When Brown ran and Officer Wilson pursued, Wilson still had a cushion of distance in his favor. He fired no more shots. Brown stops and turns, Officer Wilson stops, holding fire, maintaining that cushion of distance. Brown, fully aware of his physical superiority, charges Officer Wilson, closing that cushion of distance, intent on again overpowering Officer Wilson. Other than hoping he can outrun Brown, Officer Wilson had no choice but to shoot Brown repeatedly as that cushion of distance evaporated.
Contrary to early false depictions of the distances involved, physical evidence points to Brown collapsing virtually at Officer Wilson’s feet.
If you’ve ever watched hunting shows where a hunter repeatedly fires at an enraged, charging, cape buffalo, having it, thankfully, expire at his feet, you probably expressed a sigh of relief as it finally collapsed. I imagine Officer Wilson experienced similar relief when this threat was stopped
Mas, thanks for the explanation. Maybe one could further emphasize that Officer Wilson showed remarkable restraint in not shooting Michael Brown in the back as a fleeing felon, legally or not, after Brown had just tried to kill him. The danger from a furtive move should not be underestimated, facing whatever direction. A criminal will use every loophole tactic available in any given situation, such as turning his/her back, or concealing hands. We all can use continual training vs. criminal tactics. Sunny Hostin needs more real street-beat experience and to learn not to encourage delinquency. Crooks should not be surprised when what goes around, comes around. Crime is stupid, however fashionable, and consequences are inevitable.
Mas, thanks for the explanation. Maybe one could further emphasize that Officer Wilson showed remarkable restraint in not shooting Michael Brown in the back as a fleeing felon, legally or not, after Brown had just tried to kill him. The danger from a furtive move should not be underestimated, facing whatever direction. A criminal will use every loophole tactic available in any given situation, such as turning his/her back, or concealing hands. We all can use continual training vs. criminal tactics. Sunny Hostin needs more real street-beat experience and to learn not to encourage delinquency. Crooks should not be surprised when what goes around, comes around. Crime is stupid, however fashionable, and consequences are inevitable.
Mas – Thanks for posting your expert analysis.
Mas – Thanks for posting your expert analysis.
Thank you Mas for your time in these posts. It’s greatly appreciated to hear someone from a position of knowledge and expertise weigh in on this situation. (Including all the other issues you present the facts on here)
Thank you Mas for your time in these posts. It’s greatly appreciated to hear someone from a position of knowledge and expertise weigh in on this situation. (Including all the other issues you present the facts on here)
Then there are those, like Juan Williams, who think the police in such a situation should have locked himself in their car and waited for backup. I kinda prefer police apprehend violent criminals, rather than hope to catch them later, when presumably multiple officers would persuade the bad guy of the error of his ways.
By the same level of intelligence shown by the mobs in Ferguson, the cops should go on strike for a couple days. Thank God they are more principled than that.
i saw the disparity of force and lack of movement issue immediately but you, again, have taught me more. You addressed it perfectly!
Mas, you are amazing!
After reading most of the facts and testimony I already felt the shooting was justified. But you argue the facts with great legal knowledge, clarity, and POWERFUL convictions that the media needs to interview you! Maybe you could get through to some of these obtuse people.
But maybe you are standing back just in case you are called in as an expert witness.
Thanks for the definition of Desparity of Force. I don’t think any of the talking heads, or commentators on any network have bothered to look into or discuss this major aspect of the Ferguson case. No legal experts have discussed it on any network I have been able to find. Perhaps many more uninformed folks would be more understanding, if they had done so.
It’s amazing that the Left is using this incident to try to further their cause. Can’t they find a case where a real rascist cop murders an innocent black youth? America is a big country with over 300 million people. Slavery used to be legal here, and then there followed 100 years of Jim Crow laws. Surely there must be some rascists left somewhere in America, right? If America is so rascist, how was a black President elected twice? If America is so rascist, how come that black President has not been assassinated? If America is so rascist, how come Africans freely immigrate here, and stay? (We have a bad economy, and people STILL want to come here). Why don’t American blacks escape from rascist America and return to the land of their ancestors?
The last truly despicable rascist incident in the news I can remember was back in the 1990s when two whites in a pickup truck in Texas dragged a drunken black man behind the pickup to his death. If I remember correctly, George Bush the Younger was governor, and those white guys were executed. Human nature is almost impossible to change, and yet white people have made a lot of progress in the last 500 years when it comes to race relations. We’ve come a long way from the rascist ideas of people like John C. Calhoun and Charles Darwin.
I guess the one good thing about the Left (Fabian Socialists) in this country is that they try to use lies to bring themselves into power, instead of using violence like their brothers, the Communists.
The Vox analysis finds it odd that Brown would put his hand on his waistband: “The stuff about Brown putting his hand in his waistband is meant to suggest that Wilson had reason to believe Brown might pull a gun. But it’s strange. We know Brown didn’t have a gun. And that’s an odd fact to obscure while charging a police officer.” But it makes sense according to the witness who wrote in a journal about it: “The big kid pulled his pants up.” If Brown’s pants were loose, he’d need to adjust them to keep from tripping as he ran.
The Vox piece: http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side
I think officer WILSON made a bad call when he went chasing BROWN. A shooting had already taken place by then. I think that WILSON should have waited for backup. Two or three officers ordering a suspect to surrender and having two or three times the firepower and two or three sets of eyes would be much safer.
I do not think this changes anything either legally or morally. I have not seen any evidence of malice or wrongdoing on the part of officer WILSON.
I am looking at what happened and trying to learn from it. I think that in that situation, waiting for backup would have been the better choice.
Jim
Oops! I don’t know how to spell the word “racist.” Why does English have to be so difficult?
I do agree that Officer Wilson was justified in shooting that innocent baby boy.
However, did Officer Wilson really have to stand over his wounded victim and point his long barreled Smith & Wesson model 29 down at the poor kid and tell him “This is a .44 magnum, the world’s most powerful handgun and could take your head clean off…” then asked the little boy pleading for his life “…do you feel lucky, well do you punk?” and added “Go ahead, make my day!” just before viciously planting a 240 grain JHP at over 1400 fps into the frightened teenager’s head? Maybe the victim was reaching into his pocket for a donut in a futile attempt to bribe the racist cop into not murdering him in cold blood.
But seriously, the world is not as we older guys once knew it. What was considered wrong back then is now OK and even praised by useful idiots taught by liberal teachers insinuated into the school system. Who would idolize cop killers and terrorists, and even sadistic serial killers like Che Guevara who was Fidel Castro’s favorite executioner? Look at the dumb non-moslems wanting to join ISIS aka Incredibly Sadistic Islamic Savages
and help them kill their own people. I say let those fools go and napalm them over there. We can’t kill them here, but overseas, they’re fair game.
The folks in charge of protecting Ferguson didn’t do their jobs on the night of the grand jury’s decision. They should have police and National Guard stationed at the most critical areas with orders to use any reasonable force to prevent violence against persons and destruction of property. If one allows the mob to “vent their frustrations” liberal speak for vandalism, arson, burglary, theft, etc. the savages will get the message that they are given free rein to commit crimes without risk, other than being victimized by their fellow pillagers. Like children, they need to be taught that there is punishment for doing wrong, otherwise they will become bolder and begin doing really bad things on a bigger, grander scale.
The lesson for us is, don’t depend on the government and police to protect you and your families. Take steps now to defend yourselves and advise and help those who are unprepared to get ready for the inevitable conflict.
Mary Beth, thanks for the kind words, but I am not involved in this case in any way, or I wouldn’t be commenting on it publicly at this time. I am not sure they’ll need expert witnesses at all; the criminal case there in Missouri is dead, and in light of the facts now divulged, I doubt that Eric Holder would squander what political capital he has left prosecuting a Federal case he has to know he has no evidence to sustain. Lawsuit against the department over the shooting? Sure, that was a given, but the powers that be will very likely settle out of court, simply because a trial and its almost inevitable defense verdict would likely lead to more rioting, and a settlement is cheaper in terms of the public treasury and much cheaper in terms of spilled blood and ruined lives. Should they need expert witnesses in my field, I can think of three good men and one good woman I could recommend right there in Missouri who would do an excellent job of getting across the points I’ve delineated here.
First thanks for update/analysis I can show others (much clearer then how I could explain it)
Second. Its a pet peeve of mine that settlements are given (MONEY) rather then fight it. I realize it makes more sense. I was so ticked when person who caused incident got $3k from my insurance because it was cheaper then going to trial. (Even with it ALMOST 100% given we would win) You can never know. Most educated folks do best to get out of jury duty so you have Oprah crowd…
Regards Officer locking self in car/calling for backup. We had a Officer of that type in my area. He soon quit. I was doing ride along and a situation where Officer needed a 2nd to serve ticket. (long story) We had two local Officers, Deputy, and me (a rider with no authority)
Deputy begs off as he had issues with this gent in past. (was sure his face there would cause trouble) the Other Officer looks at on duty/uniformed Officer, turns to me asks “you armed?” I said yes. He asked if I would go in with him to watch his back. The timid Officer quit by end of month. I almost felt bad for him.
When one of the parties in a physical altercation is much bigger than the other, I say that the bigger one is indeed armed — with size and strength.
One would think that a news segment on Disparity of Force would be just as good an idea as the segment they did on what excatly Stand Your Ground means. Oh wait, they never did that 😉
Brown was raised up to behave as he did by his felon stepfather, a man who initially pleaded for all to remain calm, but as soon as the “No True Bill” verdict was announced, shouted repeatedly to the crowds, “Burn the b*t*h down!”… and the crowds have complied with this exemplary “leader of men” and done just that. I’m waiting for the Incitement to Riot charge, but will probably never see that one.
Article in todays (11/29/2014) Washington Times that Officer Wilson intends to resign from the police force at some future date. Cites fear for his life.
Much of America, including CNN’s Attorney Sunny Hostin, can’t seem to grasp how Officer Darren Wilson could have been justified in shooting an ostensibly unarmed man.
I hope Ms Hostin is never on the wrong side of an enraged 300-pound football-player type. If she is, I’ll bet she won’t be thinking, I’m okay. He’s unarmed.
Well Mas, once again you have provided us with a classic illustration of the difference between an “expert” and a “know-it-all.”
People believe what they want to believe. They then pick and choose facts, however twisted and distorted, in support of their preconceived views while they conveniently discard the rest. The more emotional the issue, or the more conflicted they are about the Truth (I believe that we all know it, deep down), the more violently they respond when you offer a take on things that challenges theirs.
I frankly don’t think there’s a solution to this in the polarized society we currently live in. Eventually you learn to stick to ‘your own’, and it’s sad. And people will keep jumping to conclusions and clashing over things they don’t understand.
I waited for the whole Ferguson ‘thing’ to end before coming here for the facts and proper analysis, as usual. Mas has a way of explaining things with mathematical and unassailable precision. It’s tiresome how predictable the world is, though.
And so what makes me comment today is that it’s such a replay of the Zimmerman case (that I followed much closer here), regardless of the obvious differences. I live and work (security) far from Ferguson, but knew that there would be fall-outs here in LA. Sure enough, we had our share of unruly protesters and clashes with police. My team and I were on a low-level tactical alert. And, of course, that neighbor (of my clients’) who had walked away from me in tears at the end of my rebuttal of her “Zimmerman is a racist and that kid was unarmed” fairy tale back then, came to tell me that she’d had to bail her son out over Thanksgiving because he’d been arrested with a bunch of protesters. More of the same, I tell ya.
People never learn. They’ll keep believing what they want to believe. At least there’s islands of sanity I can come back to such as this one. Thanks, Mas. Needed that.
The cop’s testimony is all fabricated. The cop was a hillbilly that liked to ‘Mix it up’
“multiple assailants attacking lone victim, and more, but none of them seem to have been in play in this encounter.)”
I would tend to disagree as Wilson knew there was another possible attacker (Johnson the accomplice), as well as being in a hostile area.
I would also contend that if he got into a wrestling match with Brown outside of vehicle, one of more of the others in area could have come to aid of Brown with nothing more than a swift kick to the head.
Your last couple of lines sum up the truth best. People don’t want to hear the truth! If the listend to the truth then they would have to change thier mind. Then they might have to change thier mind on other things too… They then go into over load and would rather believe the lie. 🙁
Police need to become MORE pro gun/pro 2A. In so doing they would lighten the load on themselves when it comes to crime fighting by returning to the People their natural and legal rights to be their own First Defenders against violent crime, and would also verify their TOTAL solidarity with the citizenry which has been severely damaged since incidences like Ruby Ridge and Waco where the Clinton photo opt cops allowed their uniformed countenances to be prostituted in the sham cause of “Gun Control.”
This sentence: “…. Wilson testified that Brown had turned the muzzle into Wilson and was trying to pull the trigger when Wilson shot him the first time. ” Gives me pause.
While I agree with the justification of the shooting I wonder how if the ‘muzzle was turned into Wilson’ how, when he pulled the trigger, he hit Brown.
I know guns shoot where they are pointed, not necessarily where we want the bullets to go.
I have been supporting this officer from the start.I am a bit confused over this apparent inconsistency.
Thank you
Noah, I don’t have the exact page of the transcript in front of me, but as I recall the officer said he was able to lever the muzzle upward from his thigh before pulling the trigger.
Larry, don’t forget that police associations in Washington state were strongly on our side during the recent I-594 initiative, and most of the sheriffs in Colorado were initial plaintiffs on our side in the challenge to that state’s “assault weapons ban” in Federal court.
Amen!!
Steve (the one from Pro Arms) comment,
Well Mas, once again you have provided us with a classic illustration of the difference between an “expert” and a “know-it-all.”
And thanks for the expert analysis Mas!
Reasonable people understand the logic, facts and evidence involved in the Ferguson case. None of that matters to the rioters, the Brown family and those trying to cash in (there may be a bit of redundancy there).
If the goal of the rioters (protesters is too gentle a term) was to eliminate racism, they failed miserably. Watching TV, even CNN (Certainly Not the News) that tried valiantly to downplay the violence and destruction taking place in front of their camera’s lenses, only reinforced thoughts and feelings held by some that dare not be voiced. It’s difficult for those people to not draw certain conclusions and form stereotypes (or have them further reinforced) from what is taking place right in front of them.
How many, honestly, in the deepest most secret place in their mind, did not have politically incorrect thoughts as they watched what was taking place?
What must be difficult, and painful, is for calm, reasonable, civilized black people to watch the rabble riot, burn and destroy and know how badly their actions set back the efforts made, on both sides, to get to the place Dr. King advocated. A time where people are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.
If any good can come of all this perhaps it will be to cause someone, somewhere to step back and think, “This isn’t getting us anywhere.”
Thanks for the reply Mas. as always it was spot on.
Today I found out that Officer Wilson will not even receive a separation package.
What a shame!!
He resigned to help defuse the situation in Ferguson, and this is the thanks he gets.
I know it’s POLITICS!
It is PRECISELY leo’s like Officer Wilson that are so desperately needed in America. Does anyone blame him for finally putting the welfare of himself and his new bride first? I know I don’t. Why can’t the clowns who printed his address be prosecuted? Mas – you and I grew up with some sense of history and morals – we knew right from wrong – what happened? Where are they now? What this country needs to regain its moral compass is more teachers like Mas, folks – educators who know the Constitution, the law and possess the mature persona that enables them to defeat erroneous arguments with articulate oratory.
I see that officer Wilson resigned. It is a sad day for the country. I hate to say it but we seem to have risen to the heights (or depth) of Mexican societal dealings. Plata o plomo. Pay off rev Al and Jesse along with the other race baiting communists. Or die. Officer Wilson is a marked man anywhere in the USA. For the rest of his life he is going to have to watch over his shoulder. Not hyperbole he has a bounty on his life.
What folks laughed at in 2008 as the leftists destroyed the life of Sarah Palin has reached a new level. George Zimmerman and Officer Wilson were the focus of a national campaign funded by 10’s if not 100’s of millions of dollars to demonize them. This in a way is a sport. But it really is a political stmt of the day. We are damn close to a civil war. God help us.
Just because a cop says it’s so doesn’t mean it’s so. Wilson had no real cross
examination of his grand jury testimony. He did not write an incident report
required by his own department. He was also allowed to drive himself
back to the station, wash the blood off his hands and secure his own gun
in the evidence bag. (For further examples outside of “best practices” of
national standards, please see the Washington Post Online under
“Unorthodox police procedures emerge in grand jury documents.” It gets
worse than the above). There are essentially two narratives from the
incident from the people closest. Wilsons and Johnsons. And it’s all about what happened at the car.
The only inconsistent item in Johnson’s testimony for me is when he said the
“cop shot my friend in the back.” I believe that running while hearing shots
from behind and Brown going down very soon after turning it was an
assumption which was easy for the kid to make and wasn’t an indication
of trying to lie. It makes the most sense to me. Johnsons comments to
the first press questions seemed heartfelt, neither forced or exaggerated
and he was probably grateful that anyone would want to hear his/their
side since the police certainly weren’t interested in him for days.
What makes absolutely no sense is Wilson grabbing Brown through a
window. Is this a new tactical procedure for police? If you have LIMITED
RANGE OF MOVEMENT and you’ve put yourself there, who do we blame?
Wilson threw open the door, hit two people, and one of two things
happened. Brown either gave him a ration of s**t when the door hit him and
Wilson wasn’t going to take that and grabbed Brown through the window
and reached for his gun at the same time, and Brown did anything he
could to get away from an officer who was losing it and essentially was
only defending himself. Or, when Wilson threw open the door, it bounced
back on him fast and he did it again and finally Brown pushed it back be-
cause he didn’t feel like getting hit again, and Brown gets grabbed through a window, sees the cop reaching for his gun and does anything to get away
and keep from getting shot. Wilson had to slam on the brakes (screeching
tires) when he cut them off and almost hit them with less than a foot from
his door. There was no aggressive action from Brown or Johnson at the
beginning of the incident but there was verbal aggression by the officer (“get
the f**k on the sidewalk”) and physical aggression (throwing open the car
door hitting them both). The most sensible explanation is because he was
angry.
In any case the first scenario seems more likely. The Chief of Police
said at the beginning that Wilson knew about the robbery but backtracked
later (after checking with Wilson?) and said he didn’t. Wilson didn’t write an
incident report as he was required to do so that eliminates any inconsistencies
there but suddenly he says before the grand jury he knew a robbery had
occurred and he called that in but his radio must not have been working and
turned itself off during the struggle. Possible but not likely. I use to carry one
at work and find it hard to believe from my experience. But he did find room
to denigrate the entire neighborhood and Michael Brown (“it was like a 5 year
old and Hulk Hogan”). And he used all the right buzzwords (stop the threat
etc) but it sounded stilted, unnatural and rehearsed.
To believe Wilsons narrative Id have to believe that Brown out of nowhere
decided to attack a cop …but for what reason? Johnson was close enough
and testified Brown kept trying to get AWAY not go TOWARD Wilson. Brown
pulling away, Wilson pulling him toward him. “Back and forth.” Wilson had the
advantage till he reached through the window and gave it away. Having put himself in that position – or even caused it to occur – it seems rather strange
for anyone to use a DISPARITY OF FORCE defense under such circumstances.
He slammed on his brakes only a few inches from both Brown and Johnson
and tries to throw open the door. What’s he trying to do, anyway? There’s
no room to open the door. What’s the point? There’s nothing occurring on
Browns and Johnsons side at this time. It doesn’t make any sense.
If Brown was defending himself from an officer who attacked him first,
“SMASHING IN…(a) HEAD” to survive wouldn’t seem unreasonable. I’ve
looked at the pictures of Wilson from the hospital. and it doesn’t comport
with “savagely beaten” or “smashing in the head”.
The FURTIVE MOVEMENT to the waist maybe a grab for a gun? If you look
at the video from the liquor store Browns t shirt was about 12 to 18 inches
below where his waist would have been. If the bloody handprint is about
waist level then he wasn’t reaching for anything but either pulling up his
pants or in pain from being shot. What we’ll never know is what the blood on Wilsons hands indicated because he washed it off. If your shot from virtually
inches away trying to defend yourself why wouldn’t you not have blood
on your hands, the gun and probably the person holding the gun. This
doesn’t indicate anything other than that there was a close encounter. And
I’m trying to figure out why there was this escalated encounter which
resulted from something no more serious than jaywalking.
I’m trying very hard to make sense of this whole thing but I can’t and
I’m finding it hard to accept Wilsons side of the story and to know
that we will essentially never know because best practices were never
followed and that there will never be a trial with rigorous rules of
evidence and vigorous cross examination.
I LOVE IT when a troll tries to incite a response and everyone completely ignores his comments. The post also shows that Mas does not delete opposing views; Rather they stand (or fall on their own) and this was a delightfully “fall flat’ comment.
Interesting article. But, for those who criticize Americans for voicing their opinions, stop it, as it’s the right and, duty of all Americans to take an interest in how their society is run and, it’s very helpful for people like Mr. Ayoob to write, giving up more information on which to base our opinion.
Mas,
Thank you for a great read that helps others to make sense of it.
I shared this on my Facebook page so others may understand some of the concepts. I hope that was OK?
Take care, be safe, and have fun.
Vince
If what I read today was correct, the alphabet networks engaged in a bidding war over who would get the first interview with officer Wilson. Apparently ABC won with a, “high six figure” bid.
If true, I hope this is enough to allow him to relocate to somewhere safe and to start his life over.
Texas or northern Idaho would be good choices. Mark Fuhrman and many other retired LA city cops have moved to Idaho in search of peace and quiet. And Texas is Texas. I wish him the best of luck and hope he finds some peace and escape from all this media fueled frenzy.
Ladywest, you’ll forgive me if I hear an agenda in your words. Among the things you’re ignoring are:
–The blood the officer washed off his hands was exculpatory evidence which favored HIM. What could he possibly have washed off that would hide guilt on his part? Please answer, I’m curious.
–There is no credible reason to believe that Officer Wilson “attacked” Michael Brown. You are assiduously ignoring the fact that Wilson was coming from a call where he was assisting mother and child, and Brown was coming from a scene where he was on surveillance videotape committing assault and battery on a storeowner, and strong-arm robbery. Did you take that relative “indicia of mindset and manifest intent into account?
And Vince, sure, feel free to post blog entries here on Facebook.
Comments are closed.