I missed this WaPo analysis when it was first written, but it remains the only measured, objective analysis of the Ferguson situation which I have read to date. Both conservative and liberal pundits have used this case to push their agendas, and both have "spun" the investigations, crowing only about the parts of the findings that fit their preconceived notions.
There are two major points to note:
1. Liberals and protesters were completely wrong about this specific incident. The Michael Brown shooting was completely justified. The officer's account is completely upheld by all the forensic evidence. Brown did grab for the officer's gun while the officer was still in the car. Brown did not stop moving forward or offer to surrender.
I understand Brown's final, crazed dash at the policeman. By that time he had already committed a strong-arm robbery and an assault on a police officer. Given that he had already tried to grab the officer's gun, which went off, that assault charge could even have escalated to attempted homicide. He knew at that point that a surrender meant his youth was forfeit, and that he would not emerge from a hard-time prison until he was a middle-aged man. At the point when he was unable to flee, facing possible life imprisonment, and given an extra boost of courage from the THC in his system, he made a last desperate charge at the officer, knowing that if he could overpower the sole policeman then on the scene, he might still be able to flee without anyone having identified him by name. In his cornered position and stoned condition, many of us, possibly including me, might have done the same reckless thing.
2. Conservatives were wrong about the community's reaction. Yes, the protesters made an unfortunate choice of symbols in Michael Brown, but their anger was based on a long, systemic history of oppression and racist treatment from local law enforcement, inflamed and compounded by some false testimony offered by Dorian Johnson and other initial observers. It is easy to understand why the people of the community thought the Brown shooting was just "business as usual," just another example of the brutal treatment they faced daily.
Needless to say, liberal media sources concentrated only on the systemic racism while the conservative sources focused only on this one particular case. Both sides claimed a victory, although everyone involved proved to have lost.
Tuesday, May 05, 2015
‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ was built on a lie - The Washington Post
‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ was built on a lie - The Washington Post
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Actually, the federal investigation merely said there was scant, insufficient evidence supporting that narrative. But, it's the easier go-to for any cop: "I felt endangered". He still shot an unarmed man numerous times. And, forensic evidence of specific action, I've been told by several experts, is worthless. The key thing young black men should learn is not to get shot by police unless it's on video. I believe video of Brown's shooting would show something quite different from the conservative, police-version narrative.
ReplyDeleteThat's not what it said at all.
ReplyDelete"Several of witnesses stated that they would have felt threatened by Brown and would have responded in the same way Wilson did. For example, Witness 104 stated that as Wilson ran after Brown yelling “stop, stop, stop,” Brown finally turned around and raised his hands “for a second.” However, Brown then immediately balled his hands into fists and “charged” at Wilson in a “tackle run.” Witness 104 stated that Wilson fired only when Brown moved toward him and that she “would have fired
sooner.” Likewise, Witness 105 stated that Brown turned around and put his hands up “for a brief moment,” then refused a command from Wilson to “get down” and instead put his hands
“in running position” and started running toward Wilson. Witness 105 stated that Wilson shot at Brown only when Brown was moving toward him. These witnesses’ accounts are consistent with prior statements they have given, consistent with the forensic and physical evidence, and
consistent with each other’s accounts. Accordingly, we conclude that these accounts are
credible."
It concluded: "Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat."
The report also states, "In addition, even assuming that Wilson definitively knew that Brown was not armed, Wilson was aware that Brown had already assaulted him once and attempted to gain control of his gun. Wilson could thus present evidence that he reasonably feared that, if left unimpeded, Brown would again assault Wilson, again attempt to overpower him, and again attempt to take his gun. Under the law, Wilson has a strong argument that he was justified in firing his weapon at Brown as he continued to advance toward him and refuse commands to stop, and the law does not require Wilson to wait until Brown was close enough to physically assault Wilson."
In other words, yes, he shot an unarmed man several times, but he did what any other sane person would have and should have done in the same circumstances. Brown was an enormous man, drugged up, and intent on doing the policeman bodily harm. He had already assaulted the officer in his vehicle, and that assault was arguably an attempted homicide!
As for the forensic evidence being worthless, that is absolute nonsense. It clearly demonstrated many things: it showed that Brown was in the police vehicle and was close to the gun when it discharged. It clearly showed that he was not trying to hold his hands in a gesture of surrender. It clearly showed that he was still charging forward when the last bullet felled him. "Crime scene photographs establish that Brown fell to the ground with his left hand at his waistband and his right hand at his side. Brown’s blood in the roadway demonstrates that Brown came forward at least 21.6 feet from the time he turned around toward Wilson. Other
aspects of the accounts of Witness 101 and Witness 127 would render them not credible in a prosecution of Wilson, namely their accounts of what happened at the SUV. Both claim that
Wilson fired the first shot out the SUV window, Witness 101 claims that the shot hit Brown at close range in the torso, and both claim that Brown did not reach inside the vehicle. These claims are irreconcilable with the bullet in the SUV door, the close-range wound to Brown’s hand, Brown’s DNA inside Wilson’s car and on his gun, and the injuries to Wilson’s face."