Slashdot Mirror


Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

An anonymous reader writes: A grand jury in Missouri has decided there is no probable cause to charge police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown. "A grand jury of nine whites and three blacks had been meeting weekly since Aug. 20 to consider evidence. At least nine votes would have been required to indict Wilson. The Justice Department is conducting an investigation into possible civil rights violations that could result in federal charges." Government officials and Brown's family are urging calm in Ferguson after the contentious protests that followed Brown's death.

31 of 1,128 comments (clear)

  1. The "Protesters" by KermodeBear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The "protesters" in Ferguson right now are burning cars, breaking into stores, in general being asshats.

    They're not interested in any kind of justice. They're only interested in revenge.

    --
    Love sees no species.
    1. Re:The "Protesters" by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The majority of the protesters are demonstrating peacefully. Of course, that doesn't excuse the asshats. Par for the course, sadly.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:The "Protesters" by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why aren't the protesters reigning in the asshats, then?

      Actually, they are. Sorry for the lack of a link, but I heard on NPR that many protesters were trying to "talk down" others after the decision came out.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    3. Re:The "Protesters" by Rary · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In 1995 I was in Dusseldorf, Germany, taking part in a large peaceful protest that occurs annually there. It's a march through the centre of the city, all mapped out in advance. Police in full riot gear were on hand, as they are every year. Thousands of them, brought in from all over the country. The previous year, some shitheads had started rioting, and some shops were looted. As we marched through the streets, I remember noticing bystanders gathered along the planned route, just watching the march. Nothing unusual there. Except that there just happened to be particularly large clusters of bystanders, mainly young man, watching the march from right in front of each liquor store and electronics store that we passed. I found that to be an interesting coincidence.

      Unfortunately for the "bystanders", that year's march remained peaceful, so they didn't get the opportunity to cash in.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    4. Re:The "Protesters" by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's worth remembering that the protests started out peacefully. It was the police who escalated things by responding to peaceful protests with armored vehicles, police in body armor carrying assault rifles, launching tear gas at people exercising their constitutionally protected rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. You have a police force that has abdicated its responsibility to protect and serve the population, and is instead acting like an occupying army and oppressing the community they are sworn to help. And this is after years of targeting the black community. If you act like an occupying force, it's hardly surprising if people start acting like insurgents.

  2. Flip Argument by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's OK to try and harm someone just because they are wearing a badge and talking to you?

    Equally disgusting...

    Because that's what the physical evidence, and now a grand jury who had ALL the facts, said.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Flip Argument by haruchai · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And they can't possibly ever be wrong.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    2. Re:Flip Argument by apparently · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wilson shot Brown in the car, which has never been disputed. How does blood in the car or on Wilson's clothes indicate in any way, shape, or form that the shots that generated that blood loss were justified? Your genius logic is now stating that a cop can shoot a person point blank for any reason, and the fact that the person's blood splatters on the officer's gun and clothing proves that lethal force was justified.

    3. Re:Flip Argument by bongey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which was started by his friend Dorian Johnson who was recorded in local media saying " I kicked the cops door" .For some reason the national news didn't play that one. Justice for Mike Brown, Dorian Johnson should be charged with manslaughter. See why Dorian Johnson might want to lie.

    4. Re:Flip Argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And they made up the video of Brown in the store acting very abusively toward the shopkeeper?

      And they made up all of the videos and photographs of blacks rioting in the aftermath of the shooting?

      Right-o, bub.

    5. Re:Flip Argument by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But the fatal one that occurred 150 feet away from the original scuffle, after Brown had surrendered? Not a fucking chance.

      There is a grand jury who disagrees with the version of events that you have imagined.

      But you made up your mind about the officer a long time ago, so I'm wasting my time.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:Flip Argument by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Informative

      All the facts they asked for. They have the power to subpoena anyone they want.

      Are you sure about that?

      The prosecutor decides what subjects the grand jury investigates, and what witnesses and documents to subpoena. He questions the witnesses. He advises the grand jury on the rele- vance of the evidence, drafts the charges, advises the grand jury on the law, and requests the grand jury to return an indictment.' 2 The grand jury cannot return an indictment without the signature of the 4 prosecutor.' 3 This power can easily be misused.

      Looks to me like the grand jury can only get information that the prosecutor wants them to get.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    7. Re:Flip Argument by Bomarc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Running from a police officer is not an offense worthy of public execution without trial.

      Only problem was: The fatal shot was fired when he was running / charging in the direction of the officer. (If you bothered to listen to the forensic evidence... oh wait: you are one of those "I've already made up my mind, con't confuse me with facts.)

    8. Re:Flip Argument by cheezedawg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I submit to you that you do not know what happened. Don't feel bad- very few people outside of the 12 members of the Grand Jury have heard all of known facts of the case. I certainly don't know what happened.

      But please keep this in mind. Things that you accept as fact are not really facts. Case in point: your assumption that Brown had surrendered. Some of the sworn testimony that was released tonight following the prosecutor's press conference indicates that Brown had not surrendered, and in fact was charging the police officer "like a football player" with his head down and fists clenched. And at the same time, as the prosecutor detailed in his press conference, much of the early eye witness accounts that indicated that Brown had surrendered did not hold up under further scrutiny.

      As I said, I don't know what happened, but I think this is enough to move the narrative that Brown had surrendered out of the "fact" category.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    9. Re:Flip Argument by cheezedawg · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here you go: 181 pages of testimony that the Grand Jury heard.

      https://cbsstlouis.files.wordp...

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    10. Re:Flip Argument by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      7 witnesses (black) collaborated cop's story. Brown was running at the cop, after beating him and pulling his gun, which then went off in the car. The cop did the correct thing by trying to stop the offender and as the offender charged at him, the cop fired multiple rounds, hitting Brown in the hands and torso, which didn't stop the charge and so the cop finished off the offender by firing into his head. If somebody attacked me (and I am not a cop and never will be) and tried taking my gun away and tried beating me and then charged at me from a distance, I would have shot him as well, would have emptied the entire clip and the colour is absolutely irrelevant.

    11. Re:Flip Argument by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So just because the victim is a minority means they ARE wrong?

      If not, what are we supposed to do, just ignore the justice system every time some people don't like the result?

    12. Re:Flip Argument by ihtoit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      12 shots, 12 hits to the torso.

      A thoroughy justifiable shoot.

      Not.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    13. Re:Flip Argument by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But the fatal one that occurred 150 feet away from the original scuffle, after Brown had surrendered?

      Except your fantasy version of events didn't actually happen. Multiple (African American, no less) witnesses (whose stories didn't change once asked real questions) came forward of their own volition and explained what happened. Brown didn't surrender. He didn't have his hands up. And he did charge at the cop again after assaulting him the first time.

      Running from a police officer is not an offense worthy of public execution without trial.

      But punching him in the face, trying to lay hands on the officer's gun, and then turning around and charging at him seconds later after being told to stop IS grounds for a guy (who'd just been slammed back into his cruiser and punched in his face) to feel threatened when a 6' 270-lb guy rushes him. I'd like to see your reaction. Arms out for a big hug, probably?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  3. Present without comments by mwn3d · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't even know why comments are enabled on this one

  4. I just don't understand by dirk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not going to rant about how guilty Darren Wilson was. To tell the truth, I don't know if he was guilty. But I just don't understand how there wasn't enough evidence to at least take this to trial. There were multiple witnesses saying that Mike Brown had his hands up and was not attacking Darren Wilson when he was shot. This alone to me is enough to at least take it to trial and see all the evidence to try and figure out exactly what happened.

    Unfortunately, all of the emphasis has been on everything except what it should have been. It doesn't matter what Mike Brown was doing before the confrontation, or if he smoked pot. It doesn't even matter what happened with the struggle at the car (whether Mike Brown dove through the window trying for the gun or Darren Wilson grabbed him and pull him in the window). The only thing that matter is what was going on when Darren Wilson shot Mike Brown. If Mike Brown was standing (or kneeling as some reports say) with his hands up and not attacking anyone, then Darren Wilson murdered Mike Brown. If Mike Brown was charging to attack Darren Wilson when he was shot, then is was a good shooting. Unfortunately, with this grand jury decision, we will never get an answer to that. I just don't understand how with the witnesses that have come forward, they couldn't find enough evidence that maybe there was wrong doing to want all the evidence to come out so we can have answers.

    --

    "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    1. Re:I just don't understand by jbolden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There were multiple witnesses saying that Mike Brown had his hands up and was not attacking Darren Wilson when he was shot

      The problem is those witnesses were discredited by the investigation. Their statements contradicted physical evidence and some admitted they had fabricated their testimony when crossed.

      I just don't understand how with the witnesses that have come forward, they couldn't find enough evidence that maybe there was wrong doing to want all the evidence to come out so we can have answers.

      The prosecutor is releasing all the evidence.

  5. Re:Pathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's ok to be a murdering thug if you wear a badge, right?

    Disgusting.

    I think everybody is missing the important distinction here. We're mad at what happened instead of being mad at the policies and laws that allow this kind of thing.

    The grand jury didn't indict him because hes a cop. Cops are allowed to, expected to use lethal force. Cops are not required to risk themselves for members of the public. When I feel like I'm being threatened by somebody I'm required by law to try and leave, Cops are allowed to pull a gun and shoot. And to the legal system they are a part of, they see that as routine. "I shot a suspect who rushed me" is the end of the investigation for them.

    We need those attitudes and policies changed by lawmakers, the problem isn't that Police are acting badly, its that they are allowed to act badly.

  6. Re:It was an almost impossible case to prosecute by Fnord666 · · Score: 5, Informative

    If it went to trial, we *would* know all the facts.

    I take it you've never been involved in a criminal trial. The jury will only know the facts that are presented at trial. This is almost always a subset, sometimes a substantial one, of "all the facts".

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  7. Re:It was an almost impossible case to prosecute by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Informative

    If it went to trial, we *would* know all the facts.

    No, no you wouldn't. You would only know what the prosecution and defense could find and present. Nothing more, nothing less.

    As it so happens, the DA promised to release all the evidence they have to the public shortly. When, how, and in what format I do not know, but nonetheless, that's what they intend to do according to their statement.

    A grand jury doesn't determine guilt or innocence, it only decides whether a trial should happen.

    Agreed. The reason for having one in the first place is to determine whether there is enough credible evidence and testimony to be worth a trial.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  8. Re:MOD PARENT RACIST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Taco, can we get a -1 RACE CARD mod on Slashdot?

  9. Re:MOD PARENT RACIST by x0ra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When a white guy beats up a black guy, it's racist. When a black guy beats up a white guy, it's social justice... Your morality stinks.

  10. Re:The wrong problem by tnk1 · · Score: 3

    Calling someone over to your car to talk to them is "getting in to a fist fight"?

    Wilson called for backup, but it is his duty as a police officer to keep track of the suspect and delay them, arresting by himself, if he had no other choice.

    And when the assailant not only did not heed commands to halt after that fight, but then turned on him and charged, the cop is now a cowboy?

    There was nothing about this that had to turn into a fight. Cops have the right to talk to you without punches being thrown. If a cop wanted to talk to me... I'd talk to him, albeit with some concern about what he wanted and thinking about my civil rights. None of that requires me to attack the cop.

    Brown just knocked over a convenience store. So, I understand why he started a fight, even if it was still a colossally stupid thing to do. What I don't see is how the cop is now responsible for starting a fight by doing what he did.

  11. Re:MOD PARENT RACIST by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Funny

    /sung to the tune of "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers"/

    Social Justice Warriors! Deciding the truth based on progressive stack!

    Social Justice Warriors! If you don't think like us we bring the attack!

    Doesn't matter if you kill or steal, you aren't white so you're "keepin it real", and if you have a vag you can do no wrong, just believe like us and you can sing this song!

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  12. Has the trend away from blunt force led to this? by swb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As far as I know, the American police used to use a lot more blunt force -- flashlights, billy clubs, night sticks, beavertail saps, sap gloves -- to subdue people.

    Over the past few decades, and especially since Rodney King's beating, blunt force seems to be off the menu. It has been somewhat replaced by the Taser, but their cost and the increasing awareness of the risk of death seems to have blunted (sorry) its use.

    I wonder if the elimination of blunt force from the police toolkit has somehow led to a situation where "if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" kind of a situation, where the police have come to see many situations that may have in the past been responded to with blunt force instead getting treated as a situation to shoot.

    Physical confrontations without the use of an alternate weapon often boil down to wrestling matches which can quickly become a pulled gun or a struggle for an officer's gun, and many times a physical struggle is justified as a reason to shoot.

    None of this to say that people weren't beaten for unjust reasons, but they also weren't killed, either.

    When cops carried blunt force weapons they also knew how to use them in a way to inflict pain in a way that gained submission but also in a way that avoided major injury, since major injury didn't necessarily work in their favor. They seemed to have a spectrum of force available instead of a binary choice of shooting or not shooting.

  13. Re:Moderate BS by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Informative

    Especially batshit irrelevant, as the cop had no idea there was a reported robbery

    Why are you lying about this? What's your agenda that you are deliberately spreading false information?

    Wilson was on another call nearby (helping with a baby that was having trouble breathing). He heard over his radio that there was a local retail store that had just had the strong-arm robbery we saw on video. After a minute or two more on the local situation, he left, and started in his cruiser down the road. He saw two guys walking down the middle of the street and as he passed, told them to get over to the sidewalk. When he got close, he noted that the 270-pound guy was a perfect match, right down to the red hat and yellow socks, for the description he had just heard on the radio. Before he confronted Brown, he got on the radio and said he had eyes on two individuals, and that he needed backup.

    He pulled his cruiser backwards at an angle to cut off their jaunty stroll down the middle of the street and to block other traffic, and went to get out of his cruiser. Brown slammed the cruiser door shut, twice, and punched Wilson in the face, through the window. Before he got hit a third time, Wilson went for his weapon in order to get that huge guy to back off. Brown tried to grab it (his DNA is on the gun), and the gun went off in the car. Twice. One of those shots grazed Brown's thumb, leaving up-close powder marks. He (Brown) started to back off and walk away, and Wilson got out to stop him. Multiple witnesses (including half a dozen African Americans who came forward on their own to the police, and weren't interested in media attention) corroborated all of this, including what happened next (Brown turns around and moves at Wilson, who fires a few times, winging Brown - Wilson STOPS shooting and again tells Brown to stop - Brown then charges at Wilson who shoots again until Brown stops). There's blood on the street that shows Brown covered significant distance TOWARDS Wilson, just as described by those same witnesses.

    Wilson was exactly aware that there had been a robbery, saw matching perps, and called it in. You know this, everyone knows this, and the people who are deliberately skipping over that simple fact (there are recordings!) are deliberately lying. Like you are, right now.

    Prosecutors can 'indict a ham sandwich' with a grand jury.

    Prosecutors can't do a damn thing unless they present that grand jury with compelling evidence and the GRAND JURY decides there's probable cause to bring charges. Grand juries routinely opt not to indict people, despite the fervent wishes of prosecutors. Another thing that you know is true, but about which you are lying for some reason. Not quite sure what your actual purpose is in doing so. It's strange.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.