As the leaks out of the "secret" grand jury begin to intensify I find it interesting how the media is reporting it. I understand a lot of this reporting is to generate web traffic and TV ratings for these media outlets, so it doesn't surprise me. But my take on the case has not changed.
He may walk, but if you want to convince me that Darren Wilson shouldn't be indicted, you're gonna have to show me more than this.
I had to chuckle when I saw the media's breathless headline on how the new "block buster" testimony supporting Darren Wilson's version of events was even coming from six BLACK witnesses. Imagine that! Black witnesses testified in a grand jury and provided information that could possibly assist a case involving a white police officer and indict a black suspect! It is sadly ironic because I know that black jurors, judges and witnesses convict black defendants and support white officers every day in this country. Black officers also arrest black suspects every single day. I was one of them. For me that is the real travesty here.
The Ferguson police department and some in the media have turned what should have been a legitimate use of force investigation into a racial time bomb.
In my previous posts (A Cops Take on Ferguson and Police Officers should be held accountable) I've been very skeptical of this officers tactics and truthfulness from the beginning. I have been even more critical of the Ferguson police department and the ridiculous way they chose to handle the aftermath. I believe if you read between the lines of the latest leaks to come out of the grand jury my analysis has been mostly confirmed.
For the record I am sick of hearing the media taking declarative sentences from an officers written statement to declare that the officer was justified. That's just lazy, sloppy journalism and not helpful.
It may turn out that Brown did go for his gun, but in reality "he went for my gun" is a typical defense for shootings involving an unarmed suspect. Just like "the subject resisted arrest" , "the subject acted in an aggressive manner" or the classic, the officer was in "fear for his safety" are common in any police report. All of these are boiler plate statements that officers put in the narrative of their incident report in ANY use of force. As they should.
Claiming these statements as a factor in using force is fine, but the fact that some in the media are using them as proof of guilt is bullshit. An officers statements alone do not constitute a reason for using deadly force.
Resisting arrest, an officer being in fear for their safety, a person making an aggressive movement towards you or acting in a violent manner is what you are paid to be able to deal with.
As a police officer you are trained to be able to handle situations like this and make appropriate decisions. So rather than take these statements as facts the media needs to just do their jobs, investigate and stop being stenographers.
It is entirely plausible that Wilson and Brown got into an altercation, but the fact that they did and Brown resisted DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOT. Just because you get punched or hit, or kicked, or threatened, or embarrassed does not automatically constitute a justification for the use of deadly force.
In law enforcement you have to deal with violence all the time. There are certain laws of physics that remain constant regardless of the situation or the parties involved. I believe that people who have never had this experience don't understand that. Unfortunately most of the people that have the loudest opinions about this have no law enforcement experience and those that do are just going in whatever direction their Facebook wall tells them to go in. So based on the information that I have read I will share what I believe is probably going on now.
According to the leaked testimony, after scuffling with Wilson at his window Brown "tried to take his gun". The Washington Post article quotes unnamed sources from the grand jury as saying Wilson testified that he did not use his chemical spray because using it in the car would have meant he sprayed himself. I believe that is plausible. I've experienced it. Even if you are in a perfect environment to use your OC spray if the wind suddenly starts blowing in the wrong direction you can render yourself blind and helpless. Then the suspect has all of the advantage. So you would never want to use OC in this situation.
Wilson also testified to the grand jury that he didn't use his ASP baton because of his position in the patrol vehicle. Wilson testified his ASP baton was "pinned between his body and the seat. He also did not have a stun gun, so he drew his gun". OK. Fights are quick and violent. Your gear can move around on your belt and in a split second you have to get to what you can. If you do use it you need space to extend it and you must be in a very open space to do so. An ASP baton can also be used in the un-extended (closed) position to strike your opponent with the butt of the weapon. In my experience this is VERY effective in close quarters and if you know how to use it you can get compliance very quickly. This explanation is also plausible, but if Wilson admits that he couldn't get to his ASP because he was in the patrol vehicle, how and why did he get his gun out?
Why on earth would Brown just suddenly decide to go for Wilson's holstered weapon in broad daylight when a moment ago they were just talking through the window? This is where the story gets murky. Some reports are that Wilson was struggling with Brown standing at his window. Other reports are that the struggle started when Wilson tried to get out of the vehicle, was pushed back and Wilson pulled Brown in with him. The post article implies that Wilson or an unnamed witness testified Brown reached in and tried to keep Wilson from drawing the weapon. Browns friend stated that Wilson grabbed Brown by the neck and that's when they began to scuffle. But why was Wilson trying to draw his weapon in the first place? Wilson claims that Brown struck him in the head several times and he didn't know what was going on but he was able to get off 2 shots. How was Wilson able to get his gun out of the holster, while he was in his vehicle and getting punched in the face and neck?
Let's take the first scenario, Wilson makes contact with suspect and after some words were exchanged Brown then reaches in the car and "goes for his gun". If you want to understand how difficult it is to get a gun out of the holster while you are in a patrol car here is an experiment you can try. Put on a pair of regular fitting jeans and then put your smart phone in your front pocket. Next go sit in your car. Now try and get that phone out of your pocket from that seated position. Speed that entire process up about 400%. If you really want to make the experiment interesting, have a friend stand outside of your car door and try to take that phone out of your pocket while you are sitting there resisting them. Not an exact science but I'm sure you'll get the point. Imagine that same experiment wearing a bullet proof vest, 25 pounds of equipment and a real gun in a triple retention holster. That is exactly why you NEVER engage a suspect while sitting in the vehicle like Wilson did. Never.
Admittedly I'm not a forensic pathologist, but I have worked my share of crime scenes. So when I read the article quoting a forensic pathologist stating that the wounds on Micheal Brown's hand and the forensic evidence found in the vehicle proved to her that Brown "was obviously going for his gun" I was surprised. I'm sure that Judy Melinek is a very accomplished forensic pathologist but she got way out there with this one. The certainty of her conclusion makes me wonder if she was misquoted or if her quote was not put into context.
Anybody that has investigated (or been involved in) any fight involving a weapon knows that when you are faced with a potentially deadly weapon like a knife or a gun you will almost always do 2 things: try and get as small as you can and put your hand up. It seems strange to people who haven't experienced this but it has been a reality in my years on the street. In situations like this a persons instincts take over and it just happens. I don't have specific data but in my experience I always found a large percentage of gunshot victims with entry wounds to the side of their body as opposed to center mass. Why? Because if you are aware that you are about to be mortally wounded most people will instinctively blade their body to the side and present the smallest target possible for the aggressor. You will also likely put your hand or arm up in a futile attempt to stop the bullet. I've seen it many many times. Shots in the hand where the bullet travels down the arm and into the body. Shots under the arm (almost always fatal) with small entry wounds no exit wound and very little external bleeding. So contrary to any conclusions the media has reached Brown could have had a very typical reaction to his impending death.
We don't know why Wilson chose to engage Brown at the window of his patrol vehicle but if he did that was a critical error on his part. CRITICAL. You just never do that. It appears to me that Wilson put himself in a bad position and that forced him to make more critical errors after that. Whatever happened at the car when Wilson felt he couldn't control the situation he reacted out of fear and anger. If you look at this incident in context you actually have 2 separate significant events. Those 2 points in time represent the beggining of 2 distinct chain of events where Wilson had a choice to make.
The first event is what happened that led to Wilson believing that he should shoot Brown at or in the patrol vehicle. The details of those circumstances are very suspicious to me. Even if you consider what the media is reporting to be supportive evidence of the officers side of the events and that evidence turns out to be 100% accurate I don't believe that Wilson was justified in shooting Brown in the first place.
The second event is what happened once Wilson exited his vehicle. In my opinion what Wilson did here is just flat out inexcusable. It is so damning because Wilson seems to have been so out of control at that point. Chasing Brown and shooting at him was wrong on every level.
If Brown has disengaged and is running away it's over.
Wilson should have stopped and called in that he had a suspect running. Wilson chased him down after the initial struggle and by this point Wilson already knew that Brown was likely unarmed. IF Brown is trying to get away and is unarmed then Wilson has absolutely no reason to shoot him whatsoever. It can be embarrassing but sometimes in the interest of your own safety and the public's you just have to let them get away.