@ Lampie
I just discovered this site, and so, late to the discussion. I have some personal experience investigating homicides and police-involved shootings, prosecution of murder and the like.
1. and 2.
Yes, on any shooting, police related or civilian, investigators want a statement as quickly as possible, the thought being a contemporaneous statement will be most reflective of state of mind if likewise somewhat confused due to excitement, adrenalin, etc. But if the shooter requests a attorney and time to reflect before giving a statement, do you really think we just automatically arrest and “let the courts settle it”? Really? Police and prosecutors do not arrest for murder – absent some pressing circumstance like fear of flight or continued risk to the community – unless sufficient evidence exists that not only meets probable cause but actually reaches that needed for conviction, i.e. proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or likely to reach that level quickly. We don’t just arbitrarily toss people in jail for murder in the hope a judge and jury will illuminate a confused fact set.
3. Ham sandwich, all that. Grand juries indict, and the normal threshold is probable cause, that is, more likely than not. These presume, however, that there is an existing investigation with additional proof not presented to the jurors, for time interests mainly, and that there is a greater weight of proof available. Most grand jury indictments take place because of statutory requirements, so the prosecutors hit the minimum requirements and move one. In the Ferguson case, the prosecutor went to a grand jury to avoid the appearance that a single man made a politically motivated decision on his own, but rather went to a group of citizens representative of the community. However, both the ABA and the US District Attorney’s Association urge prosecutors not to indict – as a matter of ethics – unless they possess sufficient evidence to meet the higher threshold of “beyond a reasonable doubt” needed to convict. So, even if for the sake of argument the Ferguson DA possessed PC – highly doubtful – he clearly and obviously lacked a sufficiency to convict. He would have lost at trial in a beatdown. Why then would he bother to indict, knowing he could never win, knowing that this was a futile exercise, and putting aside the ethics of it all? Why put an innocent man through a trial that was a loser, raise expectations when the verdict was predetermined, etc? So I ask, why would he?
As for the relative veracity of the witnesses, and the obvious conflict among their statements, the grand jurors weighed the testimony, and made a decision based on personal appearance, physical evidence, and who knows what else. Don’t we all do that every day in our interactions with others, make conclusions about who is truthful and who is not? At some point, we have to trust those jurors to have responsibly fulfilled their duties, since none of us were in the grand jury rooms and none of us heard all of the testimony and evidence.
And, at the end of the day, never mind all the details, why would anyone choose to believe that the officer came to work one day, and decided to execute a gentle giant who was trying to surrender, rather than believe that a 300 pound man who just committed a robbery attacked the officer and was shot while doing so, especially after viewing the video from the store? Which version strains credulity? I guess at that point, we all revert to preconceived POV.

Lampie,

I responded to this comment on BBC’s page, but here’s my answer again:

Lampie,

I’ll address each individual point.

1) “So my first question is, why would Wilson be allowed to wait a week, review witness statements and other evidence including forensics, before making a statement? Is that something anyone who shoots another is allowed to do? In that situation, I’m inclined to not believe a word he said. At the very least, his statement should be considered tainted in my opinion. Yours?”

My guess, and it’s just a guess, is that Wilson did what most cops do after a shooting: he gave a brief statement to investigators summing up the reason he fired, then gave a full statement after conferring with his attorney. The way I’ve seen it done, the officer says “I fired because he was pointing a gun at me, now I’ll wait for the union lawyer before I make a full statement.” That’s what police union attorneys suggest we do, and that’s what a lot of lawyers who take self-defense cases advise private citizens to do after a shooting. I don’t think Wilson had access to all the statements from witnesses, alleged witnesses and forensic evidence; after only a week, the evidence wouldn’t have been analyzed and witnesses were still coming forward. On its face, the claim “he waited a week to make a statement” sounds bad, but in reality it’s what all people involved in self-defense shootings are told to do: give only the bare facts, then wait until you confer with your lawyer.

2) “My second question goes to your statement that this case was not handled differently because Wilson was a cop.
There is a shooting. Cops roll up, there’s a guy dead, and a guy who shot him. There is a crowd of people shouting that the deceased was shot with his hands up, while unarmed and trying to surrender. The shooter refuses to give a statement.

Are you telling me you would not arrest him and let the court sort it out? Are you saying that a civilian would be allowed to keep his gun to protect himself from the crowd?”

There are a couple of important facets to that question. First, you’re right that police shootings are handled differently, because police are a “known quantity”. When the officers arrived on the Wilson shooting scene they knew Wilson’s level of training and experience, knew he was responding to a reported crime, and knew he had identified two suspects and called for backup. So going into it, they wouldn’t have reason to suspect it was a random execution.

Second, an accusation screamed by a crowd is NOT considered credible by itself. Mobs get whipped into a frenzy pretty easily, and people start repeating what they’ve heard others say. I’ll give you two examples, one from my own experience and one from an officer I worked with.

My friend arrived on a rollover accident. A local young man had been ejected and killed. Officers blocked the road and started working the scene. Word spread, and the man’s friends and family started arriving. After the officers had been on the scene several minutes, someone in the crowd started yelling, “He didn’t die in a wreck! The cops killed him!”

The accusation started being repeated through the crowd. Officers had to hold a perimeter to keep people from trying to get the body before it was loaded into a hearse (this was a small town where bodies went straight to a funeral home). When the hearse was loaded and started driving away, people in the crowd ran to their cars and drove after it. Several police cars had to escort the hearse to the funeral home and then block the doors to keep people from forcing their way inside. The spontaneous outburst started with one person screaming a false accusation, which then spread. The fact that numerous people were repeating it did not make it credible.

My experience: I was at a murder scene at a huge club. When we arrived there were over a thousand people in the parking lot, and it was a near-riot. A man had been killed in the parking lot and was still there. We cleared the area around him, called for EMS and checked him for vital signs. He was DOA. A large and aggressive crowd surrounded us and tried to break through to the body. People started yelling “Why haven’t you called an ambulance?” and “They aren’t calling an ambulance because he’s black!” In the meantime, an ambulance had arrived but couldn’t get through the crowd. This was one of the most frustrating, ridiculous experiences of my career: being screamed at by enraged people for refusing to call an ambulance, and no matter how loud I screamed back, “Turn around, the ambulance is behind you!”, I couldn’t even get them to turn and look. As far as they were concerned we didn’t care enough about a dead black man to even call an ambulance, and weren’t interested in hearing or even seeing anything to the contrary. Their loud and repeated accusations weren’t credible.

I’ve had other experiences with mob mentality and all I can tell you is, in my experience, shouted accusation from a crowd usually aren’t true and police certainly aren’t going to make an arrest solely based on them. So yes, I am saying I’m not going to arrest a private citizen based solely on what a crowd is shouting, and I understand if a private citizen says he’s waiting for his attorney to make a full statement. If I don’t have credible witnesses backing physical evidence that shows the private citizen committed a crime, I don’t arrest him. And I’m not going to disarm him before ensuring he’s not in danger from the crowd.

3) “I’m told that any decent DA can get a ham sandwich indicted. In fact, that ham sandwich line is apparently a cliche among those who work around courthouses. So, can it be inferred that either the DA didn’t know what he was doing, or that he didn’t want an indictment? Given that he apparently changed his whole way of approaching the GJ for this case, it doesn’t look like justice was blind here.”

The assumption made here is that there should have been an indictment, but the DA either interfered to ensure there wasn’t one or failed to secure one. Not every self-defense shooting results in an indictment. Numerous self-defense shootings, both by police and private citizens, go before a GJ without resulting in an indictment. If the investigation shows the shooting was justifiable, why would a DA pursue an indictment on someone who followed the law? In this case the DA presented ALL the witnesses to the GJ, even witnesses he believed weren’t credible, so the jurors could make the determination themselves. The jurors decided there was no evidence justifying an indictment against the officer. The DA didn’t “fail”, he presented all the evidence and witness testimony and the end result was no indictment.

4) “I don’t know what took place when Wilson rolled up on Brown that day. I don’t know how the situation escalated. Not many do. I do know that the way it was handled from a PR standpoint, with no police report filed, refusing to say who the officer was, letting Wilson wait a week before making a statement, leaving Brown on the street for hours, Rolling out the riot gear as a first response, releasing the store video with the officer’s name, the false pics of “Wilson’s eye socket, etc.etc.etc. , showed very little understanding of their own community, public perception, or how a 24 hour news cycle works. To this day, they have not got in front of the story. They just feed it. Even if Wilson told the golden truth, he and they, made him look guilty but protected to the public.”

I agree on that. Ferguson PD badly handled the aftermath of that shooting, and it made the situation much worse.

5) “Now I’m reading rumors that ‘witness 40’ who apparently told Wilson’s version to the GJ, was not at the scene. I read it once and thought… internet. I read it on a second site and thought… Really? Nawwww. That would be too sloppy/stupid for even these guys. Then I saw that ‘witness 40’ has allowed herself to be identified, and they have a pic of her. Now I’m paying attention. That’s how it works with us typical public types.”

That’s the first I’ve heard of it, and just looked it up. If that’s true, no question, her credibility should have been torn to shreds by the GJ. And if the GJ based their decision solely on her testimony, then the GJ needs to reconvene. However, there were multiple witnesses (including six black witnesses) who corroborated Wilson’s account of the incident, and whose testimony matched the physical evidence. Basically, in this case there were numerous non-credible pro-Brown witnesses and thus far one possible non-credible pro-Wilson witness. One lying witness, on either side, doesn’t decide this case one way or another.

Thanks for commenting, and I hope my explanations helped.

I’m not a cop. I’m not a lawyer. I’m not black. I don’t own a gun. The last time I got into a fight was 20 years ago. My information comes from what I see hear and read. I guess that makes me the typical public that everyone is trying to get to see their side of this.

I’ve seen what seemed to be holes in the “cop narrative”. Many of them you have filled in here, but a few remain. Maybe you can fill them in as well? Maybe not.

I’ve read the comments above, and you have pointed to other instances when a shooter was not charged with a crime. In any of those, did the shooter refuse to make a statement for a week after the shooting?
I’m told that officer Wilson waited a week before making a statement of the facts. I’m also told that any good cop will try to get a statement as soon as possible from the shooter, and from any witnesses. The reasons for that seem obvious, and it appears to the public that he was given an advantage that most shooters don’t get.

Video shows that when back-up arrived, a crowd had started forming, and they were yelling “he had his hands up! Why did you shoot him?”

So my first question is, why would Wilson be allowed to wait a week, review witness statements and other evidence including forensics, before making a statement? Is that something anyone who shoots another is allowed to do? In that situation, I’m inclined to not believe a word he said. At the very least, his statement should be considered tainted in my opinion. Yours?

My second question goes to your statement that this case was not handled differently because Wilson was a cop.
There is a shooting. Cops roll up, there’s a guy dead, and a guy who shot him. There is a crowd of people shouting that the deceased was shot with his hands up, while unarmed and trying to surrender. The shooter refuses to give a statement.

Are you telling me you would not arrest him and let the court sort it out? Are you saying that a civilian would be allowed to keep his gun to protect himself from the crowd?

I’m told that any decent DA can get a ham sandwich indicted. In fact, that ham sandwich line is apparently a cliche among those who work around courthouses.
My third question, can it be inferred that either the DA didn’t know what he was doing, or that he didn’t want an indictment? Given that he apparently changed his whole way of approaching the GJ for this case, it doesn’t look like justice was blind here.

I don’t know what took place when Wilson rolled up on Brown that day. I don’t know how the situation escalated. Not many do. I do know that the way it was handled from a PR standpoint, with no police report filed, refusing to say who the officer was, letting Wilson wait a week before making a statement, leaving Brown on the street for hours, Rolling out the riot gear as a first response to the crowd, releasing the store video with the officer’s name, the false pics of “Wilson’s eye socket”, etc.etc.etc. , showed very little understanding of their own community, public perception, or how a 24 hour news cycle works. To this day, they have not got in front of the story. They just feed it. Even if Wilson told the golden truth, he and they, made him look guilty but protected by the system, to the public.

Now I’m reading rumors that “witness 40” who apparently told Wilson’s version to the GJ, is an outspoken racist and was not at the scene. I read it once and thought… internet. I read it on a second site and thought… Really? Nawwww. That would be too sloppy/stupid for even these guys. Then I saw that “witness 40” has allowed herself to be identified, and they have a pic of her. Now I’m paying attention. That’s how it works with us typical public types.