Critical error made by assistant prosecutor in Brown case

[HW22]

I haven't seen this addressed in any other threads but I find it very important. Also, I didn't want to use biased sources for this but I can't find any middle of the road coverage on this so most of my quotes are from liberal sources but their information is credible I believe.

"On September 16, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Kathy Alizadeh handed the grand jury a copy of Missouri statute 563.046- the state’s use of force doctrine. This 1979 doctorine was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court based entirely on the portion of the statute that was helpful to Officer Darren Wilson, the part that states police officers are permitted to shoot any suspect that’s simply fleeing.
In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Tennessee v. Garner, a 15 year old boy who was shot in the back of the head by a police officer as he attempted to flee after a robbery. The ruling meant that cops could no longer legally kill someone only for attempting to escape, the officer must now have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a dangerous threat to someone or had committed a violent felony."
Read more at “Shocking Mistake” Exposed in Darren Wilson Grand Jury | The Free Thought Project

3 days before the decision Alizadeh told the jury this

"That does correctly state what the law is on when an officer can use force and when he can use Deadly Force in affecting an arrest, okay. I don’t want you to get confused and don’t rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I’ve given you a long time ago. It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that’s not correct, ignore it totally”

Confused, presumably by the lack of explanation, one juror asked if Federal court overrides Missouri statutes. Her reply? “As far as you need to know, just don’t worry about that.”

Now this one detail may of not changed the jury's decision but I think it did play a major factor. It is inexcusable for a prosecutor in one of the largest case in the last couple years to make a mistake like this. You can perceive this as a careless error or as a blatant attempt to sway the jury. I think it's easy to tell what side Lawrence O'Donnell is on.

According to MSNBC anchor, Lawrence O’Donnell:
“She was handing them something that had not been law in Missouri during her entire legal career. But it was very helpful to officer Darren Wilson that the assistant district attorney handed the grand jury an old, unconstitutional law, which said incorrectly that it is legal to shoot fleeing suspects, simply because they are fleeing. By handing the grand jury, that unconstitutional law, the assistant district attorney dramatically lowered the standard by which Darren Wilson could be judged. She was telling the grand jury, with that document that Darren Wilson had the right, the legal right to shoot and kill Michael Brown as soon as Michael Brown started running away from him. She was telling the grand jury that Darren Wilson didn’t have to feel his life threatened at all by Michael Brown. She was taking the hurdle that Darren Wilson had to get over in his testimony and flattening it. She was making it impossible for Darren Wilson to fail in front of this grand jury. She was doing all of that by handing the grand jury a so called law that has never been the law of Missouri during her entire legal career.”

So what do you think? Harmless error or intentional mistake?

 

[Mycroft]

Moot point.

The kid was running TOWARD the Officer when he was killed.

 

[HW22]

Moot point.

The kid was running TOWARD the Officer when he was killed.

That is according to Wilsons testimony. This is after Brown backed away from Wilson according to Johnson.

"Brown appeared to try and tell Wilson that he didn't have a gun, starting to take a step forward. Before Brown could complete his sentence, Wilson shot him several more times."

 

[HW22]

Johnson also said that Wilson pulled Brown through the car window by his neck, and Brown began to try to pull away. Johnson said that Wilson shot Brown during the scuffle, and Brown managed to break away from Wilson’s grip. Brown and Johnson then began to run away from the police vehicle.

Johnson said that Wilson got out of his car and began to shoot at Brown while Brown was running away. Brown then stopped, put his hands in the air, turned around and pleaded with the officer to stop shooting, since he didn’t have a gun.

Johnson claims that he was running and being shot at so this is not a moot point at all.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Johnson also said that Wilson pulled Brown through the car window by his neck, and Brown began to try to pull away. Johnson said that Wilson shot Brown during the scuffle, and Brown managed to break away from Wilson’s grip. Brown and Johnson then began to run away from the police vehicle.

Johnson said that Wilson got out of his car and began to shoot at Brown while Brown was running away. Brown then stopped, put his hands in the air, turned around and pleaded with the officer to stop shooting, since he didn’t have a gun.

Johnson claims that he was running and being shot at so this is not a moot point at all.

Johnson was also the co-conspirator are in a robbery and his testimony is discredited by both the forensic evidence and the majority of other eyewitnesses. Even if you do buy that brown was fleeing the crime Brown was suspected of went from robbery to assaulting a police officer.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Johnson also said that Wilson pulled Brown through the car window by his neck, and Brown began to try to pull away. Johnson said that Wilson shot Brown during the scuffle, and Brown managed to break away from Wilson’s grip. Brown and Johnson then began to run away from the police vehicle.

Johnson said that Wilson got out of his car and began to shoot at Brown while Brown was running away. Brown then stopped, put his hands in the air, turned around and pleaded with the officer to stop shooting, since he didn’t have a gun.

Johnson claims that he was running and being shot at so this is not a moot point at all.

Johnson was also the co-conspirator are in a robbery and his testimony is discredited by both the forensic evidence and the majority of other eyewitnesses. Even if you do buy that brown was fleeing the crime Brown was suspected of went from robbery to assaulting a police officer.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Also the assistant prosecutor is correct it is none of the grand jury's concern what the Supreme Court ruled. The grand jury was considering a violation of Missouri State law and not federal law. Because Garner V Tennessee is a case involving civil rights, any violation of that ruling by Ofc. Darren Wilson can only be probed by a federal grand jury investigating civil rights offenses. State law does not have to be consistent with federal law in state prosecutors only have to enforce state law. This was established in printz v United States. However in actor who violates civil rights may be prosecuted in federal court by a US attorney. Basically the assistant prosecutor was correct a grand jury investigating Missouri criminal violations does not need to know federal case law

 

[HW22]

Johnson was also the co-conspirator are in a robbery and his testimony is discredited by both the forensic evidence and the majority of other eyewitnesses. Even if you do buy that brown was fleeing the crime Brown was suspected of went from robbery to assaulting a police officer.

I agree Johnson isn't the perfect witness but neither is Wilson.

Here is something from Tiffany Mitchell

During an interview with MSNBC, Mitchell said she was driving when she saw the confrontation at the point when Brown and Wilson were wrestling through the window. “Brown was pushing, trying to get away from the officer,” Mitchell explained, “and the officer was trying to pull him in.”

Mitchell’s and Johnson’s versions of events match up from that point on. A shot was fired, and Brown broke away and started to run down the street away from the police car. Mitchell said the officer then got out of his vehicle and started to pursue Brown, all the while shooting at him.

 

[HW22]

Also the assistant prosecutor is correct it is none of the grand jury's concern what the Supreme Court ruled. The grand jury was considering a violation of Missouri State law and not federal law. Because Garner V Tennessee is a case involving civil rights, any violation of that ruling by Ofc. Darren Wilson can only be probed by a federal grand jury investigating civil rights offenses. State law does not have to be consistent with federal law in state prosecutors only have to enforce state law. This was established in printz v United States. However in actor who violates civil rights may be prosecuted in federal court by a US attorney. Basically the assistant prosecutor was correct a grand jury investigating Missouri criminal violations does not need to know federal case law

If she was correct then why did she backtrack and say she was wrong?

 

[HW22]

Going on more with the fact that Brown was running away. Here is what Piaget Crenshaw had to say.

Crenshaw explained to reporters on the scene, “[Brown] was running this way, but his body is laying this way because he turned around to tell the police that he was unarmed."

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I agree Johnson isn't the perfect witness but neither is Wilson.

Here is something from Tiffany Mitchell

During an interview with MSNBC, Mitchell said she was driving when she saw the confrontation at the point when Brown and Wilson were wrestling through the window. “Brown was pushing, trying to get away from the officer,” Mitchell explained, “and the officer was trying to pull him in.”

Mitchell’s and Johnson’s versions of events match up from that point on. A shot was fired, and Brown broke away and started to run down the street away from the police car. Mitchell said the officer then got out of his vehicle and started to pursue Brown, all the while shooting at him.

And the grand jury records show six witnesses supporting Wilson. I witnesses are not always the most accurate source of information. I tend to believe the majority of witnesses. Also believing Johnson and Mitchell over the majority of the witnesses means you must believe that Darren Wilson simply wanted to kill someone for no reason. Which is usually always very unlikely

 

[EMNofSeattle]

If she was correct then why did she backtrack and say she was wrong?

Hell if I know. However missouris statutes provide that defense which means Missouri judges have to honor it unless a Missouri court directs that statute struck down. However if Wilson violates TN v Garner a federal court can try him and the state law is not a defense in federal court

 

[HW22]

And the grand jury records show six witnesses supporting Wilson. I witnesses are not always the most accurate source of information. I tend to believe the majority of witnesses. Also believing Johnson and Mitchell over the majority of the witnesses means you must believe that Darren Wilson simply wanted to kill someone for no reason. Which is usually always very unlikely

A majority of witnesses agree with Wilson on some parts but from what I see, all witness say that Brown was running away then turned around with his hands in the air before being shot.

Another witness who is staying anonymous:

Approximately 25 minutes later, the man heard gunfire and looked up and saw a man, who he didn’t know at the time was Brown, “staggering and running.”
The man said that Brown put his hands up and started screaming, “OK! OK! OK! OK! OK!” The witness claims that the police officer didn’t tell Brown to get on the ground or anything.

 

[Thrilla]

Johnson also said that Wilson pulled Brown through the car window by his neck, and Brown began to try to pull away. Johnson said that Wilson shot Brown during the scuffle, and Brown managed to break away from Wilson’s grip. Brown and Johnson then began to run away from the police vehicle.

Johnson said that Wilson got out of his car and began to shoot at Brown while Brown was running away. Brown then stopped, put his hands in the air, turned around and pleaded with the officer to stop shooting, since he didn’t have a gun.

Johnson claims that he was running and being shot at so this is not a moot point at all.

brown did, in fact, commit a violent felony ( assault on a police officer)... so he wasn't shot for simply "attempting to escape"

"The ruling meant that cops could no longer legally kill someone only for attempting to escape, the officer must now have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a dangerous threat to someone or had committed a violent felony"

being the victim of, and the eyewitness to, the assault... Johnson has far more than "reasonable belief" brown had committed a violent felony.

 

[HW22]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/ferguson-witnesses/
This has tons of quotes from eyewitnesses and all but the group of people in the van say that brown was not charging.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Eyewitness statements: Did Michael Brown charge?
This has tons of quotes from eyewitnesses and all but the group of people in the van say that brown was not charging.

Except the MEs report shows wounds in a path consistent with a low stance as if charging towards someone. And he had just wrestled with a cop for his pistol...

15 feet as the distance was between them is far too close to wait for someone to act. Tell you what I'll give you a police style holster with my airsoft glock in it. I will have a sharpie pen, at 15 feet. I'll give you a hundred bucks if you can verbally warn me, assess, draw, fire, and hit before I mark a line on your forehead. Most witnesses agree brown did not have his hands up

 

[HW22]

Except the MEs report shows wounds in a path consistent with a low stance as if charging towards someone. And he had just wrestled with a cop for his pistol...

Couldn't the low stance be contributed to him stumbling like many eyewitnesses said?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Couldn't the low stance be contributed to him stumbling like many eyewitnesses said?

It could be attributed to him squatting to take a dump, but that's not likely what happened.

 

[Mycroft]

That is according to Wilsons testimony. This is after Brown backed away from Wilson according to Johnson.

"Brown appeared to try and tell Wilson that he didn't have a gun, starting to take a step forward. Before Brown could complete his sentence, Wilson shot him several more times."

Johnson's testimony was totally discredited by multiple eye-witnesses and physical evidence.

 

[HW22]

Johnson's testimony was totally discredited by multiple eye-witnesses and physical evidence.

As I said, I do not think Johnson or Wilsons testimonies are the most factual. But if we look at the other testimonies then it's easy to see that Johnson was right about Brown not charging.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/ferguson-witnesses/

 

[HW22]

It could be attributed to him squatting to take a dump, but that's not likely what happened.

Well I think the likelihood of him stumbling is very likely because most people who get shot aren't able to stand with perfect posture. Also, almost all eyewitness reports say he was stumbling so no, he was not taking a dump.

 

[Mycroft]

As I said, I do not think Johnson or Wilsons testimonies are the most factual. But if we look at the other testimonies then it's easy to see that Johnson was right about Brown not charging.

Eyewitness statements: Did Michael Brown charge?

The Grand Jury considered much more than just eye witness statements. I trust their decision to not indict.

Myself...I tend to believe Wilson's account over the statements of thug-Johnson.

 

[Fletch]

I haven't seen this addressed in any other threads but I find it very important. Also, I didn't want to use biased sources for this but I can't find any middle of the road coverage on this so most of my quotes are from liberal sources but their information is credible I believe.

"On September 16, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Kathy Alizadeh handed the grand jury a copy of Missouri statute 563.046- the state’s use of force doctrine. This 1979 doctorine was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court based entirely on the portion of the statute that was helpful to Officer Darren Wilson, the part that states police officers are permitted to shoot any suspect that’s simply fleeing.
In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Tennessee v. Garner, a 15 year old boy who was shot in the back of the head by a police officer as he attempted to flee after a robbery. The ruling meant that cops could no longer legally kill someone only for attempting to escape, the officer must now have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a dangerous threat to someone or had committed a violent felony."
Read more at “Shocking Mistake” Exposed in Darren Wilson Grand Jury | The Free Thought Project

3 days before the decision Alizadeh told the jury this

"That does correctly state what the law is on when an officer can use force and when he can use Deadly Force in affecting an arrest, okay. I don’t want you to get confused and don’t rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I’ve given you a long time ago. It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that’s not correct, ignore it totally”

Confused, presumably by the lack of explanation, one juror asked if Federal court overrides Missouri statutes. Her reply? “As far as you need to know, just don’t worry about that.”

Now this one detail may of not changed the jury's decision but I think it did play a major factor. It is inexcusable for a prosecutor in one of the largest case in the last couple years to make a mistake like this. You can perceive this as a careless error or as a blatant attempt to sway the jury. I think it's easy to tell what side Lawrence O'Donnell is on.

According to MSNBC anchor, Lawrence O’Donnell:
“She was handing them something that had not been law in Missouri during her entire legal career. But it was very helpful to officer Darren Wilson that the assistant district attorney handed the grand jury an old, unconstitutional law, which said incorrectly that it is legal to shoot fleeing suspects, simply because they are fleeing. By handing the grand jury, that unconstitutional law, the assistant district attorney dramatically lowered the standard by which Darren Wilson could be judged. She was telling the grand jury, with that document that Darren Wilson had the right, the legal right to shoot and kill Michael Brown as soon as Michael Brown started running away from him. She was telling the grand jury that Darren Wilson didn’t have to feel his life threatened at all by Michael Brown. She was taking the hurdle that Darren Wilson had to get over in his testimony and flattening it. She was making it impossible for Darren Wilson to fail in front of this grand jury. She was doing all of that by handing the grand jury a so called law that has never been the law of Missouri during her entire legal career.”

So what do you think? Harmless error or intentional mistake?

What do I think? I think you liberals have completely lost your minds on this issue. You guys are so obsessed with race you just cant let go of the false narrative that came out of the mouth of his thug friend. You WANT Wilson to be guilty so you scrounge for any shred of trash to back up what you want to believe. Its mental illness.

 

[HW22]

The Grand Jury considered much more than just eye witness statements. I trust their decision to not indict.

Myself...I tend to believe Wilson's account over the statements of thug-Johnson.

This thread was not intended to discuss the Jury's decision. I am saying that there was a huge mistake made that could of influenced the decision. If you have anything to say in defense of the assistant prosecutor I'm all ears.

 

[HW22]

What do I think? I think you liberals have completely lost your minds on this issue. You guys are so obsessed with race you just cant let go of the false narrative that came out of the mouth of his thug friend. You WANT Wilson to be guilty so you scrounge for any shred of trash to back up what you want to believe. Its mental illness.

Have I brought up race at all on this thread? Or ever? No. Please do not have one generic classification for all liberals because I consider myself much different from many of my liberal friends. I also find it odd that you seem to think that I only am looking at the statements from his friend. If you bother to read what has been said so far you will see that I said that Johnson's testimony should not be taken in full confidence. Here are the accounts from numerous other witnesses
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/ferguson-witnesses/
The only ones who support Wilsons take are the people who were in their van while every other witness from every other angle confirmed Johnson. Finally, I do not want Wilson to be guilty, I think he is being victimized way too much. I would appreciate if you would not just try to insult me but instead partake in real debate. Thanks.