Justice For Dorian Johnson!

Seriously, anyone?!

Last night the Grand Jury verdict over whether to indict police officer Darren Wilson over the fatal shooting of Micheal Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, US on August 9th 2014 (9/8/14) was released. It was found that there was no criminal case to answer.

Apart from the verdict Courts in Missouri have also begun the complex task of releasing the evidence on which the Grand Jury based its decision. This is likely to be a slow process due to concerns about the safety of the witnesses who gave evidence. However from the information that has already been released a much clearer picture of the events of that day has begun to emerge.

At roughly 11:30 local time on the day in question Wilson was called to the Canfield Green apartment block close to where the fatal shooting took place to assist with a medical emergency involving a sick child. This is actually a pretty common tactic used by terrorists when they want to draw police officers into an ambush.

Whilst responding to this call Wilson heard an open call on the police radio identifying two young males who we now know to be Micheal Brown and Dorian Johnson as suspects in a robbery (theft involving the threat or use of violence) at a convenience store close to the apartment building where Wilson was responding to a call.

Having ensured that the sick infant was receiving proper medical care and that there was no evidence that crime had been committed Wilson got back into his vehicle and drove away to continue his patrol.

Whilst driving west on Canfield Drive Wilson saw Brown and Johnson walking in the middle of the street obstructing traffic which is an arrestable offence. However rather then arresting them Wilson instead politely advised them to walk on the side walk instead. Brown responded to this by saying; "F*ck what you've got to say" which represents a second arrestable offence.

It was at this point Wilson noticed that Brown was holding property (cigarillos) that had been stolen in the convenience store robbery and that both Brown and Johnson matched the descriptions of the suspects in that robbery. Wilson then called for back-up and proceeded to move to stop both Brown and Johnson on suspicion of having committed robbery.

Before Wilson could exit his vehicle Brown advanced and slammed the vehicle door shut on Wilson whilst screaming; "What the f*ck are you going to do?!"  Wilson responded by telling Brown to; "Get the f*ck back" at which point Brown leaned in through the vehicle window and proceeded to start punching Wilson in the head. Wilson felt that this represented a clear threat to his life and safety.

No doubt many commentators each with their own agenda will dispute whether Wilson was genuine in this fear for his life but fortunately the Courts apply what is known as "The Reasonable Person Test" which asks people to consider what a reasonable person would think in the same circumstance.

In the US and, well, most democratic nations it is well established in the law that a person who was being repeatedly punched in the head would fear for their lives. After all a single blow to the head can kill and the case of Australian cricketer Phil Hughes certainly proves that point. By the sounds of things Hughes received a single blow to the head which killed him outright. It was only the fact that he received immediate medical resuscitation that means he is currently in intensive care in hospital. Also it is well established that a blow to the head can cause a person to lose consciousness rendering them unable to defend themselves putting their life at risk.

Having correctly identified that his life was in immediate danger Wilson then assessed his options of how to respond. After ruling out both his Mace/pepper spray and extendable (Asp) baton because they could not be used within the confines of the vehicle he drew his firearm - the only other weapon available to him. Brown responded to this by shouting; "You're too much of a p*ssy to shoot me" and grabbed at Wilson's firearm.

Legally this put Brown in possession of a lethal weapon and the possibility that the firearm would accidentally discharge represented an unacceptable risk to the wider public. During the struggle over Wilson's weapon it did indeed discharge twice grazing Brown on the hand/arm. Fortunately the bullets did not then go on to kill or injure any innocent bystanders.

Having sustained wounds to his hands/arms Brown then fled from the car. As is his duty under law as a fully uniformed police officer with full powers of arrest Wilson had no option other then to give chase on foot. The debate over the US' "Stand Your Ground" laws do not apply here because it is the fact that police officers have to give chase that allows civilians the option to run away and wait for police assistance.

After 150ft Brown turned and began to advance on Wilson. There is some dispute amongst witnesses as to whether his advance could be described as "walking" or "charging" but they all agree that he did not have his hands up and he most certainly was not surrendering. Again a reasonable person would consider this to be an immediate threat to their safety and life so Wilson opened fire again killing Brown.

This version of events is supported by the forensic evidence collected in both the Missouri state investigation and the Federal government investigation and is not challenged by the Brown family autopsy. It is also supported by a number of witnesses - both black and white - who consistently said that Brown was both aggressive and threatening towards Wilson throughout the encounter which lasted just 90 seconds. It is the safety of these witnesses that everybody is concerned about.

There were also a number of witnesses that claim to witnessed an encounter in which Brown was shot while surrendering with his hands up. There were also witnesses who claimed to have seen Brown being shot in the back as he was running away. However they all withdrew their testimony when the physical evidence demonstrated that it was impossible for them to have seen any such thing. Under the rule of law the process now due to those individuals is for them to face Grand Juries of their own to determine whether they should be charged with crimes such as perjury and attempting the pervert the course of justice.

The public response to this in Ferguson and other US cities was to run riot. At current count this has involved 89 arrests, 150 non-police involved shootings alongside widespread looting and arson in Missouri alone. As such many have suggested that there now needs to be a period of healing.

I think that healing process can only begin when rabble rousers like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Benjamin Crump, US Attorney General Eric Holder and, yes, even the current President of the United States Barack Obama come forward and publicly apologise for deliberately lying to the American people about the true nature of the case.

15:15 on 25/11/14 (UK date).

Edited at around 19:45 on 25/11/14 (UK date) to add;

Once again I'm back from the pub and once again I'm missing a really good soccer match. Therefore I'm worried I might fall short of the calm and sympathetic tone that the response to the Micheal Brown shooting requires.

However since I wrote the above there has been an important development in what has been a fast moving, dynamic and kinetic story.

Immediately following the announcement of the Grand Jury's verdict the Brown family and those who represent them collectively issued a statement. This ended with the phrase; "Let's not just make noise, let's make a difference." From experience I know that such as statement is dangerously close to incitement either to riot or otherwise commit criminal acts. Later video emerged showing Micheal Brown's step-father and his mother's current partner making the incitement even more explicit with the phrase; "Burn this b*tch down!"

This is important because it makes the Brown's part of a criminal conspiracy to commit, particularly, arson along with all other instances of criminal damage and murder of police officers is the big charge that will be thrown. It also makes them all individually liable under civil law for every cent of damage that is done to property in response to the verdict.

At a press conference Benjamin Crump - the Brown family lawyer - responded to these allegations by reminding everyone that these statements were given at an emotional difficult moment for the family. In a Court this would be considered a full admission of guilt and a plea of mitigation for a reduced sentence. Given the scale of what has gone on the expected sentence for such a crime would be around 25 years to life in prison or the death penalty should anyone be killed in states like Missouri along with any civil penalties. In short I'm getting the impression that Benjamin Crump is a pretty sh*t lawyer.

Although I didn't watch it I gather the rest of the Brown press conference was an equally shambolic affair. Apparently at one point a blogger asked a question that the 'community' did not like so they all rushed off stage to physically attack him in front of the assembled cameras of the world's media.

Beyond that I found Crump's accusation that Wilson had not been properly cross-examined to be particularly without foundation. Although I'm not going to go through the 90 odd pages I have before me line-by-line it is clear that whilst giving his testimony Wilson's examiner kept changing the subject seemingly at random. This is intended to confuse the witness in the hope that this confusion will make it harder to lie consistently. So while we can debate whether the prosecutor assigned to the case is particularly talented or not Wilson was rigorously cross-examined during his testimony.

Another thing that really annoyed me is that throughout the press conference everyone referred to Micheal Brown as; "The Victim." As any first year law student knows "Victim" is considered a prejudicial term because it asserts that the individual in question has been subject to an unlawful act. The correct term is "The Deceased" because the purpose of the Grand Jury was to establish if there was probable cause to suggest that the deceased had been the victim of an unlawful act.

So I think the lesson is that if you've been involved in a tragedy of this type and Benjamin Crump and Al Sharpton turn up on your doorstep offering to help it's probably a good idea just to shoot them.

Today there are said to be over 100 protests planned all across the US. I cannot overstate how important it is that these are peaceful and ideally do not happen at all. That is because although this isn't one of them there have been incidents where the US police have just murdered black men simply for being black. The Oscar Grant case is particularly burned in my memory for my online discussion board days.

Hopefully there will never be another case like that but if there is all anybody will remember is how people behaved during the Micheal Brown case.

(Originally Posted on 25/11/14 - UK date).