Same story as all the other shit- in the very instant he might have felt threatened and thus he's legally allowed to shoot, but everything he did leading up to the shooting unnecessarily escalated the situation to the point where he got himself into the threatening situation and was thus allowed to shoot. Convenient how that works, like stand-your-ground laws.
Darren Wilson admits that Brown never tried to grab his gun
I really don't want to appear to be defending Wilson on the broader issues at all, but this isn't right. He admits that "Brown never tried to remove [his] gun from [his] holster." The plaintiffs never asked for a more general admission about grabbing the gun--which is kind of a conspicuous omission--so Wilson's response doesn't address it. They do ask him to admit that Brown didn't wrestle over the weapon later in the encounter (after Wilson had fired), and Wilson's response makes it pretty clear that he would not have admitted that Brown hadn't tried to grab his gun earlier.
Some other tendentious stuff in that article. At first I thought the real big revelation was that (as the article strongly implies) Wilson admitted to firing at Brown while he was running away. That would have been pretty important, I think, but in fact Wilson denies this.
Context: http://www.unfogged.com/archives/comments_14858.html#1830486
At first I thought the real big revelation was that (as the article strongly implies) Wilson admitted to firing at Brown while he was running away. That would have been pretty important, I think...
You would think so.
I thought this would be more directly about the newly released video that might show Brown's exchanging marijuana for cigarillos earlier in the day.
4: Yeah, well, I equivocated there because legally it might not have mattered much, given that the shot missed.
I wasn't terribly impressed by the narrative of the earlier visit to the convenience store. It seems to me that the only thing it possibly could change is the potential motive for the later robbery, and not the fact of the robbery.
But the robbery never had anything to do with the shooting, right? I mean, the only relevance of the robbery was that it supposedly showed he had it coming, I thought.
At some point (don't know if this was the final legal argument) Wilson said that he heard about the robbery and therefore suspected Brown and was therefore justified in grabbing him and slamming the door open, he wasn't just picking on random brown kids for jaywalking. But I think it was already established that Wilson hadn't actually heard about the robbery or didn't connect to Brown.
What happens when the next unarmed kid gets shot by the police but the Justice Department shows up and says, "The local police have a great relationship with the blacks. They've always had a great relationship with the blacks"?
Probably they charge the kid's family with obstruction or lying or something. Got to teach them a lesson to make sure they keep that great relationship.
I looked at this, and I think potchkeh is right about the admission -- it's an admission that Brown didn't try to grab Wilson's gun out of the holster, but not that Brown never tried to grab the gun.
What struck me as an important admission, though, is that Wilson admits that he reached through his window to grab Brown's forearm, which implies that Brown did not initiate the violence by diving in through the window to pummel Wilson.
Nothing in this, I think, settles the ultimate issues in the case, but it does make Wilson look like a murderous fuckup.
If only there had been a proper trial at which all this could have come out and been subject to cross-examination.
I probably didn't keep as close track of this as many of you, but wasn't it always the known case that after the encounter at the car, whatever it was, Brown runs away, Wilson keeps shooting, and then Brown turns around and heads (or looks like he's going to head?) for Wilson?
A detail I'm not sure I ever learned was how far Brown was from Wilson when (a) Brown turned and (b) Wilson fired each shot.
Also, gswift, if you're around? In one of the prior Ferguson threads, you said:
That Dorian Johnson account [in context, claiming that Wilson had reached through the car window to grab Brown] runs counter to every bit of police training I've ever had with regards to dealing with people from a vehicle. It's a bizarre way to try and restrain or arrest someone. There's no possibility of effectively restraining or handcuffing someone in that fashion.
I agree that it sounds like really bad policing, but now that Wilson has admitted reaching through his window to grab Brown, does that change your sense of the rights and wrongs of the encounter?
A lot (all?) of these police involved shootings have an officer doing everything possible to escalate the situation to the point where deadly force comes into play. The same thing happened in the Trayvon Martin case (though no cop). The problem with arguing these issues with conservatives or other authoritarians is that in the moment when the decision to shoot is made there may well be some legitimate risk to the officer, and in the face of that all other evidence evaporates. I argue with people about this stuff online all the time, and make little or no progress because to an authoritarian doing all that bullying and abusive stuff that leads to a response which might justify shooting is just cops doing their job. Bullying and abuse of the vulnerable is what authoritarians want from their law enforcement.
but wasn't it always the known case that after the encounter at the car, whatever it was, Brown runs away, Wilson keeps shooting,
I think this is not known and still in contention. If Wilson was shooting at Brown's back while he was running away, Wilson is wrong, full stop. He needs to have been under threat at the moment every shot was fired to justify the shooting.
Wilson's story is that there was one shot, which injured Brown, while they were struggling at the car, no shots while Brown was fleeing, and the remaining shots were fired after Brown turned. I don't think these admissions contradict that.
Oh. I thought Brown turned around because running away wasn't working: the guy was still shooting at him.
I agree with you about what probably happened -- the alternative makes no sense to me -- but Wilson's denying it and I don't think there's physical proof one way or the other.
But yeah, Wilson's story has always depended on the idea that Brown initially fled after the struggle at the car, and then for no particular reason changed his mind to turn and attack Wilson.
The article says Wilson basically admitted to firing at a fleeing Brown, but the Response denies it.
Wilson balks at admitted that Brown turned 'several yards' from him, but admits it was 'several feet.' Is it true that the exact locations of Brown and Wilson when Brown turned and Wilson started shooting aren't known? The physical evidence at the scene didn't establish this?
Not with much precision, no. There was a blood trail -- Brown was definitely injured by the first shot, if I've got it straight, so there's blood showing where he was when he was furthest away. And there's where the cartridges (is that the right word?) were found, which indicates where Wilson was when he was firing, but they're little hard round things that could have rolled a fair distance.
I'd have to look back, but I'm remembering that the furthest forward cartridge was fairly close to where Brown fell and died.
If Wilson was shooting at Brown's back while he was running away, Wilson is wrong, full stop. He needs to have been under threat at the moment every shot was fired to justify the shooting.
This seems fair. See the similar Lee Clegg case in Northern Ireland: some car thieves rammed through an army checkpoint under fire and one of them was killed. The inquest found that the (I think) 17 shots fired through the front of the car were all legit, but the four more fired after the car had passed the checkpoint were not, because the car was no longer a threat - and one of those four had been the fatal shot.
Fair, but not very realistic. I am not and have never been a trained soldier, but it would take a lot of training to make me stop shooting at someone who had just tried to kill me with a car just because he had failed. I'd imagine there is quite a lot of adrenaline after someone drives a car at your roadblock.
22
The cop who shot and killed Sammy Yatim on a Toronto streetcar in 2013 was convicted of *attempted* murder, on the grounds that he fired two volleys. The first volley was (the jury said) justified, and killed Yatim. The second volley was not justified, as Yatim was on the ground, bleeding out, and paralyzed when the cop shot him 6 more times.
As one journalist put it on Twitter, "Boy, Forcillo was really lucky he'd already killed the guy he tried to murder"
23: the conviction was eventually overturned because it turned out the bullet track was uncertain.
24 seems a very peculiar decision indeed.
Given the facts they seem to have found, it makes sense, but they're really screwy facts to claim to have been certain of.
Doesn't it further throw in disrepute everything Wilson has ever said, since he specifically testified to the grand jury "he grabbed my gun"?
I don't think so? I think what Wilson said to the grand jury was compatible with "He grabbed my gun that I was already pointing at him"?
I mean, I think it discredits him some, but at an earlier stage. As I understand Wilson's story, it's:
1)After I tried to open my car door and Brown shoved it closed on me, Brown started hitting me through the window of my car, putting me in fear of my life.
2) This fear of injury justified me in pulling a gun on him.
3) Then he 'grabbed the gun' and I shot him, he ran, and I ultimately killed him.
What the new admission makes the story sound like to me is:
1) After I tried to open my car door and Brown shoved it closed on me, I grabbed Brown through the window of my car, and his struggles to get free put me in fear of my life.
with the following steps the same. And that sounds completely unreasonable to me.
The state prosecutor so manifestly didn't want this to go to trial I'm suspicious he knew the case looked bad for the defense. Otherwise why snow the grand jury.
14: I'm not seeing though anything on when it occurs. There's not really a dispute as to the fact of an altercation occurring through the window and all I see is the agreement that at some point during that altercation Wilson grabbed Brown. But some of the early accounts were making it sound like Wilson drove up and immediately grabbed him through the window as a first resort and that's the part I find unlikely. Maybe he did and it's clarified in the timeline somewhere I haven't read? If he did that's a damn stupid thing to do.
If Wilson was shooting at Brown's back while he was running away, Wilson is wrong, full stop. He needs to have been under threat at the moment every shot was fired to justify the shooting.
Not necessarily. This is the language of our use of force and many states are the same. A robbery suspect that tries to take an officers gun is likely getting you over the threshold of "deadly force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by escape; and...probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to others if apprehension is delayed"
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter2/76-2-S404.html
Is it true that the exact locations of Brown and Wilson when Brown turned and Wilson started shooting aren't known? The physical evidence at the scene didn't establish this?
The blood trail establishes Brown made it back in Wilson's direction for around 20 or 25 feet. LB's right that casings can roll around but in this instance some of them landed in the grass parking strip so we have a decent idea of Wilson's position. Brown made it past or even with every casing which is consistent with Wilson's statement that he had to backpedal to keep from being overtaken by Brown.
But the robbery never had anything to do with the shooting, right?
Wilson supposedly recognized them as the subjects from the robbery during the account. Robberies get a BOLO/ATL pretty quick over the radio and at least with us it also goes out as a text alert sent to your in car computer.
30: There's an admission that Wilson reached through the window. That seems incompatible with a verbal interaction terminated by Brown's attacking Wilson through the window.
33: If Wilson's getting punched or swung on or whatever by a guy standing outside his window why wouldn't he try and grab him to try and exert some control and maybe tie up an arm?
Because at the point when he says he's getting hit, he says Brown is coming through the window at him. If he has to reach out the window to get his hands on Brown, Brown's not coming through the window at him yet.
35: not necessarily. If you punch someone through a window, say, your arm goes in through the window, hits them, and then withdraws. You don't just leave your arm hanging there in midair next to their face after you make contact. Now, if they want to get their hands on you to stop you punching them again, they'll have to reach out through the window.
Rather than, say, rolling up the window or driving away in the running car they're sitting in.
This is a matter of what makes sense rather than physical impossibilities, sure. And if it makes sense to you that a plausible way for Wilson sitting in a car to protect himself from being hit by Brown leaning into the car window to punch him is for Wilson to reach out through the window, grab for Browns body, and end up grabbing his forearm? Then that makes sense to you and I don't see how I'm going to talk you out of it. But I'm not seeing it as likely.
37: rolling up the window or driving away is what you or I would do if someone tried to punch me. But Wilson was a police officer. If I punch a police officer, I wouldn't expect him to hide or to run away: I would expect him to try to grab me, because that's his job.
"if someone tried to punch me" s/b "us" obvs
Nah, 38 is right. I'd probably roll up the window and drive away if someone tried to punch you. I'm conflict-averse like that.
Remember that the position gswift is arguing here is that it's absurd to think that the struggle was a matter of Wilson having initiated the physical altercation by grabbing Brown through the car window, because anyone competent would know that you can't control someone like that. Brown must have suddenly attacked Wilson after a previously purely verbal interaction. If you're going to claim that grabbing Brown through the car window to control him is obviously what any police officer would do, because it's his job, that's a problem for the claim that we know Brown was the aggressor.
And I'm not focusing on who's the aggressor out of some sense of playground fairness, it's because Wilson needs to justify pulling a gun on Brown and shooting Brown in 'self-defense' -- Wilson doesn't claim that Brown went for the gun before Wilson drew it on him. When Wilson drew the gun and shot Brown, he either thought it was necessary to protect himself, which seems implausible to me if he's dealing with someone who he has to grab onto to keep from getting away, or he thought he was in the right shooting a jaywalker/suspected petty-thief rather than letting him get away.
40.2: I think that gswift's position still holds. It doesn't make sense for Wilson to go from verbal interaction to grabbing through the window. But in this scenario, Brown was the initial aggressor, and Wilson responded to a physical attack by trying to grab him through the window. That's a different situation. If Brown's just punched Wilson through the window, Brown will be very close to the window, and his forearm, in particular, will be either still through the window or just outside it, so easier to grab.
How close was Brown to the door at this point? Close enough to make it impossible to open without the door banging into Brown - and close enough, if you believe Wilson, for Brown to be able to slam the door shut again. Really close.
Like I said in 37, if the story you're telling: Brown suddenly attacks; Wilson reaches out the window of the car and grabs Brown in self-defense; Wilson then draws his gun in further self-defense while Brown is punching him through the window of the car; Brown grabs for the gun and Wilson shoots Brown, sounds plausible and like justified self-defense or competent policing to you, I'm not going to convince you.
We went over this in the threads at the time- most people find the argument that Wilson couldn't have done x because it's against his training or not ideal policing tactics to be somewhat lacking.
Especially when X goes from obviously out of the question because it's impractical and ineffective to obviously right and necessary within a couple of seconds.
44 isn't a very strong argument. All sorts of things can go from "out of the question" to "right and necessary" in two seconds.
And on 42: which of those steps sounds implausible? Is it fundamentally implausible for someone to punch a police officer? No. Police officers get punched all the time. For the police officer to try to grab him in self defence? No; seems entirely the right response. For the attacker to respond by punching him again? For the police officer to draw his gun? For the attacker to then try to grab that gun? For the police officer to respond by opening fire?
None of those steps sound particularly implausible.
I notice the linked article has been significantly updated after the WP journalist pointed out how much of it was wrong.
If the argument is that no one would do it because it's ineffective, I don't see what changed about the situation to make it effective.
Is it fundamentally implausible for an unarmed man to attack a police officer to the point of making the police officer fear for his life because the police officer is verbally threatening to arrest him for jaywalking and petty theft? Yes, it is. It's not physically impossible, but it's not likely.
Is it implausible for a man being punched through the window of a car to defend himself by reaching out of the car window and grabbing his assailant to keep him from getting away? Yes -- see above.
Is it reasonable for the police officer to draw his gun? It seems pretty fucking stupid to me while he's in an altercation with someone within arms reach, unless he thinks shooting is immediately necessary -- this isn't a situation where he can safely use the gun as a threat, because of the risk it will be taken away from him. So let's collapse that into is it reasonable for Wilson to shoot Brown? And the answer is no, if his goal is to effectuate the arrest of a jaywalker/robbery suspect. Yes only if Wilson thinks it's necessary in self-defense.
You don't think the fact that Wilson had to reach out of the window of his car to grab Brown changes the odds as to whether Wilson had to shoot Brown for his own safety (rather than to complete the arrest). I do -- I think it makes it much likelier that Brown was struggling to escape, rather than murderously attacking Wilson. I don't follow your thought process, and as I've said repeatedly, I'm not hoping to convince you of mine.
Luckily, we've been talking about Wilson's admissions in his filing, rather than the linked article.
You don't think the fact that Wilson had to reach out of the window of his car to grab Brown changes the odds as to whether Wilson had to shoot Brown for his own safety
If Brown was making a grab for the gun, then I think Wilson's safety was at risk. Forensics say that Brown was shot at very close range in the base of the thumb while his hand was inside the car.
I think that 47 is slightly misrepresenting what I think happened:
Wilson pulls over and is needlessly verbally aggresssive to Brown.
Brown steps up close to the car.
Wilson tries to open the door, but either it hits Brown and rebounds back, or else Brown shoves it closed again.
Brown hits Wilson through the window. (Because, from his point of view, he's just been assaulted by Wilson with a door.)
Wilson grabs Brown's forearm and drags it back in through the window; it's awkward and not a sensible thing to do, but he can't get the door open with Brown standing there. Now Wilson has at least one and probably both hands occupied.
Brown uses his free hand to get loose.
Wilson, now with his hands free, draws his weapon.
Brown reaches inside the car to grab for the weapon.
Wilson fires, hitting Brown in the hand.
I don't know what you're arguing. Is the story you're telling possible? Sure, it's physically possible.
Are you arguing that it's obviously more probable than an alternative story where Wilson grabbed Brown through the car window, and the struggle that culminated in Wilson drawing his gun and shooting Brown was a matter of Brown trying to get away, rather than Brown attacking Wilson?
Or are you agnostic between the two stories?
Brown uses his free hand to get loose.
Wilson, now with his hands free, draws his weapon.
Brown reaches inside the car to grab for the weapon.
WTF? Brown was trying to get loose, succeeded because Wilson's hands are now free, but once Broad saw a gun, instead of continuing his effort to escape, he decides to try to grab the gun?
(I don't think there were any accounts saying Brown 'stepped up' to the car -- my memory of Wilson and Johnson's story was that Wilson pulled up right next to Brown. It's not important, except that saying that Brown approached the car sets an aggressive tone.)
51: I think the underlying postulate of that story has to be that Brown wasn't trying to get loose. He was committed enough to attacking Wilson to dive into a car in the face of drawn gun rather than fleeing. Why this should have been the car, I can't tell you.
51, 53: I can't think of another good explanation for why Brown's hand was still inside the car, right next to Wilson's gun, when Wilson fired. (And it was.)
Unless you think Wilson was holding a struggling Brown in place one-handed, keeping Brown's hand inside the car, while drawing his weapon with the other hand in order to shoot Brown in the thumb? Nice trick. If Brown is free at any point, and if he wants to escape, what are his hands doing still inside the car by the time Wilson fires?
Wilson has admitted that during the altercation he grabbed Brown. I don't understand at all what makes it implausible for him to have drawn his gun to shoot Brown while he was still holding Brown and Brown was trying to get away.
(I should say that I'm focussing on drawing the gun as an unnecessary and disproportionate decision to use deadly force. Once Wilson decided to use the gun, it seems both likely and not probative of anything about Brown's dangerousness that Brown unsuccessfully tried to keep Wilson from shooting him. Thinking of that as enough evidence that Brown was an immediate threat to others to justify Wilson's shooting him as he fled seems wrong to me.)
To put it another way, my sense of the likeliest version of events is that Brown wasn't free at any point between when Wilson grabbed him and shot him, because if he were free then, I would have expected him to flee.
I don't understand at all what makes it implausible for him to have drawn his gun to shoot Brown while he was still holding Brown and Brown was trying to get away.
I'm just sceptical that he would have been able to hold Brown in place one-handed. Brown was a big guy and Wilson would have had to hold his arm with his left hand (because drawing weapon with his right hand). And then he shoots Brown in.... the base of the thumb, of all places? But a shot, inside the car, to the base of the thumb makes absolute sense if Brown was reaching for the gun.
If you start from the assumption that Brown was definitely trying to flee - then, yes, you have to assume that Wilson was holding him in place one-handed. I don't think that assumption is warranted.
And, if you start by assuming that Brown wanted to flee, and that Wilson opened the confrontation by grabbing at him - why didn't Brown just step back out of the way? You have to be really close to a car for the driver to be able to grab you through the window.
Brown was really close to the car -- close enough either for Wilson to have opened the door into him and hit him, or to have shoved the door closed, depending on who you believe. But that he was right next to the car is not in contention. And this all happened quickly, so you don't have to assume that Wilson held onto Brown for long, just for long enough to draw his gun.
So, failed door-opening, however that went down; Wilson (also a very big guy. Any size difference between Brown and Wilson was fat) grabbed Brown through the window with his closest hand, the left; short struggle; Wilson decided pulling a gun rather than risking Brown getting away was a good idea, and did; Brown reached for the gun to keep Wilson from shooting him (if you want to call this 'trying to take Wilson's gun', I can't stop you. But it seems like a natural reaction when a man who's holding onto you points a gun at you, and not indicative of murderous intent or of likeliness to go on a killing spree after you run off unarmed); Wilson fired the gun and got Brown in the hand; lost his grip on Brown and Brown fled; Wilson killed him.
That story seems much more plausible to me than that Brown repeatedly dove into a car to attack someone who he knew was armed, and then who was actually pointing a gun at him, when he had the option to flee.
58 sounds entirely plausible. He tried to grab Wilson's gun during a struggle and Wilson shot him. I guess in that case the difference is whether you think it's a reasonable and justifiable act to try to grab a gun that's being held by a police officer whom you have just punched.
Like I said, if you want to call a situation where a police officer grabs a jaywalker/robbery suspect, draws a gun to keep the jaywalker/robbery suspect from escaping, and, then after the jaywalker/robbery suspect tries to prevent the police officer from using the gun on him, shoots him, 'trying to grab a gun', I can't stop you.
But the decision by Wilson that attempting to prevent a jaywalker/robbery suspect from escaping justified the use of deadly force seems to me to be incompetent and murderous.
Under the story told in 58, which sounds entirely plausible to you, do you think deadly force was justified when Wilson drew his gun? Do you think it was a reasonable decision to draw a gun while in an altercation with someone at less than arms-length distance if deadly force was not justified? I think the answer to both of those questions is no.
I guess in that case the difference is whether you think it's a reasonable and justifiable act to try to grab a gun that's being held by a police officer whom you have just punched.
See, I'm not wondering about whether Brown's actions were justified. Some certainly were ill-advised. But he's dead. I'm trying to figure out if the guy who killed him was justifed.
Are we revisiting our conclusions? No. Reason and the evidence didn't support not going to trial then, and it doesn't now. There's essentially nothing a police officer can do to a black person in most of the United States and suffer a criminal penalty. Darren Wilson is free man. Michael Slager is going to walk.
But the decision by Wilson that attempting to prevent a jaywalker/robbery suspect from escaping justified the use of deadly force seems to me to be incompetent and murderous.
Especially since it's pretty well established that it was only a jaywalking suspect.
if you want to call a situation where a police officer grabs a jaywalker/robbery suspect, draws a gun to keep the jaywalker/robbery suspect from escaping, and, then after the jaywalker/robbery suspect tries to prevent the police officer from using the gun on him, shoots him, 'trying to grab a gun', I can't stop you.
He "tries to prevent the police officer from using the gun on him" by... doing what? Running away? Hiding? Ducking? Shouting 'don't shoot'? What did he do, exactly? You're implying that saying "Brown tried to grab Wilson's gun" is some sort of bizarre misreading of events, when it's exactly what happened. Maybe Brown wasn't trying to take the gun away from Wilson, just twist it round to point in a safe direction, but Wilson didn't know that. (Neither do you.)
Also omitted from that account: Brown punching Wilson. Wilson said he did, and Wilson had injuries to his face and neck.
No, we don't know. We do know that one man involved was armed, trained, in a car, and back-up by an entire department of similarly situated people. Yet somehow he was the one who got into a situation where he feared for his life.
If we just want white people with pistols who are afraid of black people, this is America. We can get that for free.
||
What's a polite way to tell your sister you don't like her enough to fly halfway around the world for her wedding?
|>
You're implying that saying "Brown tried to grab Wilson's gun" is some sort of bizarre misreading of events, when it's exactly what happened
As I understand, the only evidence supporting this claim is Wilson's non-contemporaneous testimony. The physical evidence neither supports nor disputes it. Claiming it is the undisputed truth is curiously deferential to the accused officer.
64: I don't think that is established -- I thought it came out that Wilson plausibly had heard the report of the robbery, and what sounded like a clear statement that he hadn't turned out to be ambiguous.
Although, while we're talking evidence, I've been agreeing that evidence establishes that Brown touched Wilson's gun (because they found DNA on it). This is actually kind of bullshit even in the absence of intentional fraud -- he was right at the car when he was shot, there was blood on the car and on Wilson's pants. That there was blood on Wilson's gun doesn't seem to me to establish that Brown touched it, rather than the blood having gotten smeared on it later. But I haven't been arguing about that, because honestly, if someone was holding on to me and was pointing a gun at me, I think I'd probably be struggling to get it pointed away from me too.
Hey, ajay -- focusing on Wilson's conduct, rather than Brown's, I asked a couple of questions above, and I'm not sure of your opinion on them yet. Again, in case you missed them:
Under the story told in 58, which sounds entirely plausible to you, do you think deadly force was justified when Wilson drew his gun? Do you think it was a reasonable decision to draw a gun while in an altercation with someone at less than arms-length distance if deadly force was not justified? I think the answer to both of those questions is no.
Just in time: FL poised to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a stand-your-ground shooting was not in self-defense.
Suspect their legislature is going to rethink this as soon as a Black man uses it.
Not a problem: if a person of color shoots a person of discolor it's not self defense. This doesn't even need to be codified.
Why do you need to be polite, Mossy? Is there no hope of cutting off contact completely? (I'm generally willing to pay very high social prices to avoid people I dislike.) Could you tentatively plan to come and then fake a serious illness? Or really get the serious illness, for the lulz?
You could always try being sanctimonious about jet fuel in the age of climate change if all else fails. Vitally important pledge to be carbon-neutral for a year, can't afford to offset the flight, etc. I'd say that, as a man, you might be able to get written off as cranky and eccentric, but still family; this is harder (although not impossible if you're determined) for women.
76 to 69. I don't know why I'm even trying to help you after you put up that distractingly fascinating thread about comparative frontiers when I have deadlines up to my ears, though.
That's where the expression "I'm up to my ears in work" comes from.
73: deadly force was not justified at the point where he drew his gun but it was at the point where he fired it. If someone grabs for your gun it is reasonable to fear that they want to take it off you.
Was it reasonable to draw his gun? More difficult question. But if Brown had already hit Wilson then I would say yes. But I'm not familiar with training around when you can and can't draw a weapon.
71: the physical evidence supports it though not unambiguously. Getting shot in the hand is a likely consequence of trying to grab a loaded gun that someone is holding. It is a much less likely consequence of any other chain of events.
Two thoughts: first, I'm not trained in firearms usage, and I'm not a police officer, so this is a purely untrained, lay reaction. But drawing a gun when someone you're actively engaged in an altercation with close enough to touch you seems like a lunatic thing to do unless you're committed to shooting them immediately, and there being insider technical training to the contrary seems very unlikely. A struggle over the gun is absolutely predictable (inevitable? No. But predictable. I'm as non-violent a person as you could expect, out of a settled faith in my own incapacity, and if someone who was holding on to me to keep me from getting away pulled a gun on me, I'd think that struggling to get the gun away from them was my best hope of living through it.) Pulling the gun was, you agree, unjustified. And pulling the gun made the situation where Wilson killed Brown very, very likely. If deadly force was not justified at the moment when he pulled the gun, Wilson is some combination of murderous and incompetent.
Second thought: Exactly what happened in that altercation isn't knowable, because one of the two participants killed the other, so we don't have both of their stories. But for the sake of argument imagine my best guess about how it went down was roughly correct: Wilson grabbed Brown and pulled him against the car/an arm through the car window; Brown tried to pull away, rather than attack (and hit Wilson, not terribly significantly from the pictures, but hit him in the course of the struggle). And while Brown was trying to get away, Wilson pulled a gun on him, and Brown then changed his struggle to try not only to get away, but also to deflect/get the gun away from the man who is threatening to kill him. But was still trying to pull away.
Assuming that to be the case (and of course you're free to refuse to make that assumption): Does "If someone grabs for your gun it is reasonable to fear that they want to take it off you, " still sound legit to you? Because it doesn't sound legit to me. It sounds like saying that if someone's trying to get away from me, and I threaten to kill them, and they attempt to disarm me, I'm justified in shooting them in self defense. And that sounds crazy.
"Pulling the gun was, you agree, unjustified."
Not sure when I said that.
From your 82: deadly force was not justified at the point where he drew his gun but it was at the point where he fired it.
And on pulling the quote I was thinking of, I see the disconnect. Sure, you could think that pulling the gun was justified, if you believed that pulling a gun while engaged in a physical struggle with someone was reasonable in the absence of an intent to use deadly force. This seems mental to me, but I suppose you might believe it.
69: If politeness is important to you bc you want to not burn bridges then I think it matters why 1/2 world away - destination wedding, bc of where she lives, or bc of where you live? If destination wedding and invite didn't come with all travel expenses covered only minimal politeness shld do, just say sorry your budget doesn't stretch that far and looking forward to break out the bubbles next time all in same place. If it's bc of where you live then probably need to paper your decline with more oomph why the logistics won't work then segue pronto to bubbles-next-time. And if it's bc of where she lives, is anyone from your lot going? Are you an outlier in the family solidarity stakes? Seems more complicated, but just remember - always end with the bubbles! And do something nice she isn't expecting the week before* like send her extravagant flowers and a bottle of super perfume so she knows you are thinking of her.
*to slip in before the hubub (sp?) reaches fever pitch and so she knows you thought ahead.
87: it's a step on the escalation ladder. Just like you could point a weapon in a situation where firing it would not be justified - you never go straight from zero to lethal force. You have a series of steps you go through on the way, and each one gives you a chance to stop before using firearms. Unarmed force is one step. Drawing a weapon would be another.
Sure, that would make sense for someone who was standing some distance away from the person they were trying to threaten. Because then the person under threat is not in a position to defend themselves against the threat of deadly force you've just unleashed by attempting to disarm you.
When you're actively struggling with someone, on the other hand, you think it makes sense to pull a gun at a time when shooting that person would not be justified? Because that makes a struggle over the gun, as I said above, absolutely predictable. Which further makes pulling the gun out, if you're not immediately justified in using it, completely mental, because it is very likely to create a situation where you're afraid that the gun will be used on you. (In your reading of the situation, which is about best possible reading of the situation for Wilson, note, this is what actually happened. He pulled a gun at a time when deadly force was not justified, and that decision created a situation where deadly force was justified. That makes the initial decision look like a bad idea, if we're going to think of shooting jaywalkers/robbery suspects as a bad outcome.)
I mean, this might sound like a reasonable idea to you, and if that's what you think, I don't know how I could talk you out of it.
||
Incidentally, I was (almost) witness to a fatal police shooting Sunday afternoon. I was walking home from the bank, saw police cars pull up at the corner, half a block away from me, and within 15 seconds heard gunfire. From my angle I couldn't see anything but it was striking.
The local police released video of the incident. I haven't watched it yet; I'm not sure that I want to. But if anybody wants to opine feel free. I'm still not sure what to make of the whole experience.
|>
Huh. That's a shame that it happened, but the video makes it look pretty justified (well, I don't actually see the knife in his hand, but I'm figuring it's there). Guy with a knife who's already stabbed someone walking toward a police officer pointing a gun at him, I can't see what else was going to happen.
That's my sense as well. When it happened the thing that was surprising was how quickly it happened -- according to the story 10 seconds from making contact to shooting. But, obviously the reason that the police are releasing the video so quickly is that they think it was justified, with good reason.
Yeah. I would agree that it was quick, but it didn't look unreasonably quick -- the cop yelled a warning, and there was (barely, but I would say there was) time for the guy to have reacted to it.
I watched the video and my primary reaction is that I would not be cut out to be a cop (unsurprisingly). It seems like it would be really tough to make that decision in the moment.
We talk a lot about the fact that the decision to use lethal force (or to escalate to the point at which lethal force is a real possibility) isn't one that should be made lightly and, as much as possible, that training and rules should be structured so that lethal force isn't the default response.
That's all correct and, at the same time, I feel sympathy for the cop in that video -- because I don't see any way to know for sure whether shooting was the correct response. I can comfortably say that it was defensible, and that it wasn't clearly incorrect. But if you asked, would waiting an additional 2 or 3 seconds before shooting have made the situation better or worse? I don't see any way to answer that question (on additional thought; they were in the middle of a street in downtown on a weekend afternoon. At the moment of shooting the angle was such that there were unlikely to be any people further down the street in the line of fire. But at a different angle that would have been a real concern.
It just seems tough to be in a situation in which all you can say is that killing somebody is not the wrong decision.
This week's Radiolab is the first in a two-part series on police violence, and it is (unsurprisingly) really good.
I feel sympathy for the cop in that video
Yeah, for exactly the reasons you gave. The shooting looked defensible to me -- I couldn't call it a wrong decision -- but as if it would be hard for the cop to be absolutely certain it was necessary, and that has to tear you up.
I think the US would do better to compare their rate of fatal police shootings with other countries. The US has a higher rate even correcting for population. This suggests that the police-culture (for want of better term) is quite different in the US but that there may be ways to address the problem. Any given shooting may be 'US-justified' but that doesn't mean a police officer from Germany/Britain/Canada would do the same thing.
The US has a much higher rate of gun fatalities than other countries; to some extent police shootings are just one element of that (side note: I'm not a huge Michael Moore film, but Bowling For Columbine did a good job of making that point).
Sure, and that's one aspect to tackle. Let's just start saying that the US is an outlier.
(relevant Onion headline "'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens*")
*exaggerated for effect
I swear to Christ if one more liberal compares US police shootings to western European countries I will shoot this thread in the face.
I have to say, it had clearly been too long since I'd seen Tampopo -- I had completely forgotten that it shares with Cannibal Holocaust a scene featuring the actual killing and butchering of a turtle. So creepy. Very Bunuelesque though.
Tampopo is so great but it's also been so long that I've seen it that I don't remember that seen at all.
Now that I think about it, it's been way too long since I've watched Double Indemnity too. I wonder what secret depravities await me there.