6 ms·

I don't think anyone disagrees that there was an altercation at the car where Wilson sustained a blow to the face. The disputed versions of events see to me to

by malyk 12y ago

I don't think anyone disagrees that there was an altercation at the car where Wilson sustained a blow to the face. The disputed versions of events see to me to be 1. How Wilson first addresses Brown (nice as Wilsons testimony or aggressive) 2. How the altercation at the car started (Brown slams door on Wilson vs wilson slamming door into brown and then who grabbed who first) 3. Brown charging Wilson vs trying to surrender. Wilsons version of events isn't all that believable if you've had any experience with police. But I withhold judgement. The problem is we'll never know how things actually went down...though I have deep suspicions that Brown was trying to surrender after being fired upon as he ran away. What actually bothers me about the event was that after the physical altercation ended in the car the life of Wilson was no longer threatened. But then he got out of his vehicle and chased Brown down, apparently while shooting at him. How is that a legitimate use of force? And that's just the event itself. How the event was handled in the aftermath is even more troubling at a systematic level. The conflicts of interest that exist between a district attorney and the police force he or she has to work with every day vis a vis trying one of those officers is just too great. I'm not naive enough to think that a not guilty verdict wouldn't have led to riots, but at the very least we should have a trial to better determine what happened there irregardless of the result.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
Thanks for the comment. About this: What actually bothers me about the event was that after the physical altercation ended in the car the life of Wilson was no longer threatened. But then he got out of his vehicle and chased Brown down, apparently while shooting at him. How is that a legitimate use of force? It's an officer's job/duty to chase down someone who just attacked them. I went into some of that at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8747052 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8747052 Basically, if they're willing to attack an officer, they're definitely willing to attack anyone else in the community. Their motive isn't exactly clear, so maybe they don't pose an immediate danger to the community, but their willingness to commit physical violence is very clear at that point. So it's very important to apprehend them. Plus, if the offender later turned out to be a murder suspect, the officer would rightly get into deep trouble if they'd been attacked by them and didn't go chase them down immediately, especially if they escape and go into hiding. What sucks is that the police department only gave him a gun and nothing else. Pepper spray or a taser would have avoided all of this madness. Or a working videocamera with audio pickups. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuupBHUGbYo#t=1m02s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuupBHUGbYo#t=1m02s goes to pretty great lengths to explain all of the painstaking process the jury went through to analyze the physical evidence and every piece of witness testimony. I wholeheartedly recommend anyone who's interested in all of this or considering joining the Brown protests to watch that whole video. It seems difficult to think that the physical evidence is unreliable or that conflicts of interests may have caused the jury to ignore parts of the physical evidence. Though I suppose anything is possible.
- malyk 12y ago
  But what if Brown wasn't attacking the officer but defending himself? Dorian Johnson's story is that Wilson almost ran them over, slammed his door into them, and then grabbed Brown and pulled him through the window. IF Michael Brown is struggling to get free after being unnecessarily assaulted by Wilson and then sees Wilson draw his gun then of course he is going to strike the officer trying to flee. And this is why the situation is so troubling. The witness testimony is all over the place and unreliable (as it usually is), and it leaves open huge variations in how the events transpired. Yes, Wilson was struck somehow. But we don't know who initiated the conflict and that has a huge bearing on what happens next. Yes, Brown was shot in the car. But we have no idea if he actually got ahold of the gun in Wilsons hand and was aiming it at Wilson. Wilson could have simply pulled the gun out and started firing. Yes, we know that Brown ran away and was chased. Yes, we know he was shot facing Wilson. But we don't know if he was standing still surrendering or charging. I've read a huge chunk of the grand jury testimony and looked at a lot of the evidence and the only reasonable conclusion that you can come to is "I don't know what happened". two other things. First, I'm sure most people believe that if a police officer tells you to do something you do it. That might be really good advice, especially if you have brown skin, but I think it's not reasonable to blindly obey over-aggressive and unfounded requests just because the person has a badge. Second, police tend to escalate situations way beyond what is necessary and my gut says the Ferguson event is a perfect example if you hedge against Wilsons whitewashed version. One more thing...police need to be evaluated on a different metric then simply arrests. Killing a fleeing suspect should almost always be an intolerable event inside the police department. Letting the guy get away is almost always the better alternative (almost being the key word). But, as you said, that would get the officer in trouble. Which is just dumb.
  - MetaCosm 12y ago
    A lot of your post is you just saying things you think with no evidence, what your "gut" tells you, etc. Not going to respond to those, because they are not very interesting. Let me share one of my personal opinions with no basis in fact: cake is superior to pie, there I said it! > But what if Brown wasn't attacking the officer but defending himself? We actually got into a bit of a debate at dinner discussing if you have the right to defend yourself against an unjust arrest -- short version: "nope". In 1900 there was a case that went that way, but since then it was been reversed... and even more specifically overruled in various state ordinances. Even if you did have the right to physical resist (again, you don't, so don't resist arrest) an "unjust arrest" ... you aren't informed of the reason you are being arrested at the time of arrest, you don't have enough information to even claim it is unjust. > If Michael Brown is struggling to get free after being unnecessarily assaulted by Wilson and then sees Wilson draw his gun then of course he is going to strike the officer trying to flee. This is put forth as factual "of course". But, it isn't the common case -- most people when assaulted (justified or not) by a police officer surrender, and if it escalates to having a gun drawn... they... you guessed it, surrender. The vast majority of police officers make it to retirement without firing their weapon while on duty. > First, I'm sure most people believe that if a police officer tells you to do something you do it. That might be really good advice, especially if you have brown skin, but I think it's not reasonable to blindly obey over-aggressive and unfounded requests just because the person has a badge. You can think what you want, but you have NO RIGHT to EVER resist arrest, that is the simple fact, there is no law on your side, and it will end horribly for you. You submit, you get arrested, you offer NO resistance and then you take action AFTER the fact (sue, try to get them fired, take it to the press, whatever).

by malyk 12y ago

sillysaurus3 12y ago

Thanks for the comment. About this: What actually bothers me about the event was that after the physical altercation ended in the car the life of Wilson was no longer threatened. But then he got out of his vehicle and chased Brown down, apparently while shooting at him. How is that a legitimate use of force? It's an officer's job/duty to chase down someone who just attacked them. I went into some of that at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8747052 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8747052 Basically, if they're willing to attack an officer, they're definitely willing to attack anyone else in the community. Their motive isn't exactly clear, so maybe they don't pose an immediate danger to the community, but their willingness to commit physical violence is very clear at that point. So it's very important to apprehend them. Plus, if the offender later turned out to be a murder suspect, the officer would rightly get into deep trouble if they'd been attacked by them and didn't go chase them down immediately, especially if they escape and go into hiding. What sucks is that the police department only gave him a gun and nothing else. Pepper spray or a taser would have avoided all of this madness. Or a working videocamera with audio pickups. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuupBHUGbYo#t=1m02s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuupBHUGbYo#t=1m02s goes to pretty great lengths to explain all of the painstaking process the jury went through to analyze the physical evidence and every piece of witness testimony. I wholeheartedly recommend anyone who's interested in all of this or considering joining the Brown protests to watch that whole video. It seems difficult to think that the physical evidence is unreliable or that conflicts of interests may have caused the jury to ignore parts of the physical evidence. Though I suppose anything is possible.

malyk 12y ago
But what if Brown wasn't attacking the officer but defending himself? Dorian Johnson's story is that Wilson almost ran them over, slammed his door into them, and then grabbed Brown and pulled him through the window. IF Michael Brown is struggling to get free after being unnecessarily assaulted by Wilson and then sees Wilson draw his gun then of course he is going to strike the officer trying to flee. And this is why the situation is so troubling. The witness testimony is all over the place and unreliable (as it usually is), and it leaves open huge variations in how the events transpired. Yes, Wilson was struck somehow. But we don't know who initiated the conflict and that has a huge bearing on what happens next. Yes, Brown was shot in the car. But we have no idea if he actually got ahold of the gun in Wilsons hand and was aiming it at Wilson. Wilson could have simply pulled the gun out and started firing. Yes, we know that Brown ran away and was chased. Yes, we know he was shot facing Wilson. But we don't know if he was standing still surrendering or charging. I've read a huge chunk of the grand jury testimony and looked at a lot of the evidence and the only reasonable conclusion that you can come to is "I don't know what happened". two other things. First, I'm sure most people believe that if a police officer tells you to do something you do it. That might be really good advice, especially if you have brown skin, but I think it's not reasonable to blindly obey over-aggressive and unfounded requests just because the person has a badge. Second, police tend to escalate situations way beyond what is necessary and my gut says the Ferguson event is a perfect example if you hedge against Wilsons whitewashed version. One more thing...police need to be evaluated on a different metric then simply arrests. Killing a fleeing suspect should almost always be an intolerable event inside the police department. Letting the guy get away is almost always the better alternative (almost being the key word). But, as you said, that would get the officer in trouble. Which is just dumb.
- MetaCosm 12y ago
  A lot of your post is you just saying things you think with no evidence, what your "gut" tells you, etc. Not going to respond to those, because they are not very interesting. Let me share one of my personal opinions with no basis in fact: cake is superior to pie, there I said it! > But what if Brown wasn't attacking the officer but defending himself? We actually got into a bit of a debate at dinner discussing if you have the right to defend yourself against an unjust arrest -- short version: "nope". In 1900 there was a case that went that way, but since then it was been reversed... and even more specifically overruled in various state ordinances. Even if you did have the right to physical resist (again, you don't, so don't resist arrest) an "unjust arrest" ... you aren't informed of the reason you are being arrested at the time of arrest, you don't have enough information to even claim it is unjust. > If Michael Brown is struggling to get free after being unnecessarily assaulted by Wilson and then sees Wilson draw his gun then of course he is going to strike the officer trying to flee. This is put forth as factual "of course". But, it isn't the common case -- most people when assaulted (justified or not) by a police officer surrender, and if it escalates to having a gun drawn... they... you guessed it, surrender. The vast majority of police officers make it to retirement without firing their weapon while on duty. > First, I'm sure most people believe that if a police officer tells you to do something you do it. That might be really good advice, especially if you have brown skin, but I think it's not reasonable to blindly obey over-aggressive and unfounded requests just because the person has a badge. You can think what you want, but you have NO RIGHT to EVER resist arrest, that is the simple fact, there is no law on your side, and it will end horribly for you. You submit, you get arrested, you offer NO resistance and then you take action AFTER the fact (sue, try to get them fired, take it to the press, whatever).