I don't know whose "fault" it was.

But there are longstanding socioeconomic and racial, ethnic, and cultural differences in what people are taught about law enforcement. People of higher socioeconomic status and particularly whites are less likely to be told what to do when stopped by the police. They are most likely to be taught to trust the police and feel more calm in most police interactions. In contrast, people of lower socioeconomic status and especially racial and ethnic minorities tend to be taught to stay clear of the police and how to behave if confronted by he police. Even many middle and upper class Blacks and Hispanics teach youth in their communities to stay away from police and how to behave if confronted by police.

I most certainly did not mean to imply that Michael Brown was at fault in his death. I do think that many, many young lives are ruined or lost due to their inability to communicate properly with the police.

And I agree, especially with your last sentence. Everyone, seriously, everyone, who is stopped or otherwise engaged by the police needs to learn early how to not make a bad situation worst.

What is the possible justification for the 6th shot? How is that one self-defense?

Per findlaw.com:

Points 1 and 3 are clear: Someone was killed, and the defendant knew that firing his gun was a threat to someone's life. Point 2 is a bit hazier. Wilson didn't shoot with "reckless disregard for human life", but his actions could be considered "inherently dangerous".

That said, I don't know why the grand jury was even asked to consider Murder 1. That is "an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated" - again per findlaw.com.

Evidence. Volume V, pg 206 has Wilson's testimony about Brown.

You don't even get into "reckless disregard for human life" if the shots which were fired were justifiable, i.e. fired in self-defense.

We can only guess, but it would seem that based upon what we know, the grand jury found there wasn't enough evidence to even indict. At this point, none of us is in a position to say they did the wrong thing.

It wasn't a good night in Ferguson. Protests turned violent. Multiple businesses were burned.

http://www.kmov.com/special-coverage...283799591.html

I kept thinking the same thing.

I agree. The grand jury heard all of the evidence and was in the best position to determine whether there was probably cause.

I'm not saying that means that they got it right—they may have blown it, or they may have let factors other than the evidence influence their decision. But they did have the benefit of all the evidence available.

I do anticipate civil rights charges.

Assuming the evidence is the same, assuming the grand jury didn't blow it, I would anticipate any civil rights charges to go down on summary judgment (if it's a civil charge) or in some sort of pretrial motion if it's a criminal charge, in that Wilson had qualified immunity in that he was performing his duties when he shot Brown.

What we're learning about the evidence shows that if leaders of the black community wanted to pick a cause célèbre to illustrate the unfair treatment of black men in the criminal justice system that this particular choice was ill-advised. I'm not sure race would be a motivating factor in an officer using deadly force when a suspect punches a police officer in the face and after trying to flee, turns and charges, which is apparently what the evidence and testimony of eyewitnesses tended to say happened.

These are my questions, too. Does fear of imminent death diminish with the 3rd, the 4th, the 5th shot? Have the distances been determined showing how far Brown was from Wilson when the shots were fired?

Also, it's been reported that police department violated their own protocol, not taking statement from Wilson immediately after the incident, instead the next day. By then, several other witness narratives had emerged.



MysticCat, a question. I've seen legal commentary on several networks discussing basically a "data dump," by the prosecutor, giving all the evidence to the grand jury and letting them sort it out rather than guiding them to the charge he wanted or thought most appropriate.

Except for a Ferguson police union representative, all the legal eagles I saw though the behavior quite odd and out of form for the role of a prosecutor in a grand jury setting. Your thoughts?

On the local level the Grand Jury decision's been made. But a lot about this process, as reported, stinks.

Quite possibly. Still, I'll be more surprised if civil rights charges are not brought than if they are.

I'm probably not the best one to ask, as criminal law hasn't been a large part of my practice. It did sound a little odd to me, but my experience with grand juries is nill. Kevin might know more.

So say the pundits.

With grand juries, as with trial courts, YMMV from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I haven't seen any "experts" pontificating on this subject with any experience presenting cases to grand juries in St. Louis County, so I don't think there is near enough to even suggest what you are suggesting.

To this legal eagle, totally bizarre. Here's a data-based take on indictments, grand juries, and accusations against police:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/f...darren-wilson/

First I want to say that I'm not totally up on all of the facts surrounding the shots fired, but I am sure that the distance between Brown and Wilson was identified and brought to the grand jury's attention since it is standard investigative protocol following an officer involved shooting.

Your question involving the number of shots I'm assuming is you questioning whether or not they were necessary and to that I say that we are trained to stop the threat, not fire one shot than reassess, fire more if necessary. Depending on the size of the person it could take one shot, or ten shots to bring someone down ( Ex. Suge Knight was shot 6 times last month and he walked himself out of the club after that). I see people always getting hung up on the number of initial shots fired and as a law enforcement officer it's one of those things that irks me. Unless he continued to shoot at Brown after Brown went down its hard to make a legit argument about the number of shots fired.

I'm curious about what you mean about the police dept violating their own protocol about taking Wilsons statement. I work in law enforcement and its a rule of thumb to not make your official statement untill you can speak to a union representative and have been able to shake off the shock and fog of what just took place. Once you articulate on paper what happened, there's no going back to change your statement to include something you forgot. So that being said, Wilson giving his initial formal statement the day after is normal.

There were peaceful Ferguson neighborhoods where the violent protests did not reach.

In the area with the violent protests, I hope the people who live in that area never petition to local representatives about increasing employment and business revenue in the area. If they ever wonder why companies do not open shop in this area, they can play the videos of businesses being torn apart by rioters. The destructive and violent protesters are a relatively small percentage of the total amount of protesters, and some of them came from outside of Ferguson to act a complete idiot. But the results are all the same.

The NAACP president on CBS This Morning.

The other national and international protests appeared more calm.

More people need to remember that systemic inequalities and patterns of behavior do not mean that every incident is a result of injustice. That cannot be assumed which is why we have a legal process in an attempt to span beyond personal opinions and civil unrest. Michael Brown's family will most likely be assisted with filing a civil suit.