We're not dealing with "what if ..." scenarios ~ we're dealing with the reality of what happened ~

While Brown outweighed Wilson by a good amount, they were about the same height ~ I believe Wilson's adrenalin rush made him panicky and he reacted in panic ~ but Wilson had at least a couple of options, Cannalee ~ he could have put his car into gear and floored it, driving off while calling for back-up is #1 on my list ~ or he could have shot to take Brown down but not kill him ~

I also read somewhere [and I'll try to find it again] that the picture of the "blown out orbital socket" damage Brown did to Wilson was not even a photo of Wilson ~ that was the right-wing media doing what the right-wing media does best: misleading people in the direction they want them to go ~ the REAL picture of the "damage" done by Brown to Wilson showed Wilson with a slightly reddened cheek, as if he had been slapped ~

Wilson's refusal to show any remorse at taking the life of another for any reason really nags at me ~ Wilson's dehumanizing Brown by refusing to mention Brown by name but calling him "it" really nags at me too ~ and Wilson walking away with nearly $1million cash between his on-line fundraiser and the fee ABC paid him for the "1st interview" really nags at me ~

I know some, maybe even many, cops believe as you do, Cannalee ~ but I know a LOT of cops who would themselves be destroyed by taking another's life ~

Sooz

True we are not ďealing with possible scenarios but possible scenarios is a training tool in academy. The idea of locking himself in the car never occurred to me and I doubt it occurred to Wilson. Such an action would be viewed as "crawlfishing" by most cops. It just isn't part of most cops mentality. As shooting to wound that too isn't how it happens. I would be destroyed if I shot/killed an innocent. Hopefully I would not be if I killed a perp. I dunno. Never killed anyone.

Cannalee, did you know that several of Wilson's shots went wild and hit/penetrated nearby apartment buildings? ~ "what if" one or more of those shots hit innocents? ~ and "academy training tools" should include ALL scenarios IMO, not just the "macho" scenarios ~ for me personally, a BIG part of the problem is the cop mindset requiring obedience/respect in all scenarios ~ sometimes the cop is WRONG and sometimes the cop overreacts ~

I recognize we're talking about split-second decisions here ~ but as I posted above, I'm convinced Wilson reacted in panic ~ and that's understandable ... but only to a degree ~ that's why denying Wilson a trial was such a travesty to BOTH Wilson and Brown ~

And that brings us to a fork in the road: either Wilson is/was a lousy cop OR police training needs deep revamping ~ I'm guessing both were factors here ~

Sooz

If trained to act like a pseudo Rambo these are the results, IMO.

Well I don't know all the details. I was just defending the officer's shooting of Brown. And I'd prefer to have Rambo rather than Barney Fife as a cop generally speaking.

And I'd rather have competent police officers. That's what we pay for. Incidently, the non-white community is paying for them as well.

Always remember, Cannalee, that "the devil is in the details" ~

Sooz

For sure the devil is in the details. It may be that Wilson was a hot dog who did panic-- I don't know. FOR as an officer I didn't have much use for hot dogs: they tend to aggravate situations rather than mitigate. That said I can only go on what little I know and based on that limited knowledge I have to still say that Wilson had to keep possession of his gun at all costs, which is cop shop 101.

The only thing worse than not knowing is not wanting to know when it might shatter one's beliefs.

That's so true Oskar. But there is NO good reason for a cop to give up his gun and I think that was the driving fear in Wilson's mind.

Good cops are sufficiently well-trained to control their fears and to not panic. It's good that he's no longer a cop.

In riot-torn Ferguson, police distrust flows from a city run on fines
The city at the centre of the Michael Brown shooting is one of 90 small enclaves in the same county
By Keith Boag, CBC News
Posted: Dec 03, 2014 5:00 AM ET|
Last Updated: Dec 03, 2014 5:00 AM ET

One way to improve the mood in Ferguson, Missouri, might be to just get rid of its police force and let the county police take over.

Or even better, perhaps, do like St. George, another small town down the road in St. Louis Country.

A few years ago a woman named Carmen Wilkerson ran for mayor of St. George. She was a single issue candidate who promised, if elected, she would do her best to destroy the city.

The argument wasn't complicated. St. George didn't do much for its population of 1,337 — no schools, no fire department, no public library. It really had no reason for being.

It had already shut down its police department figuring that it didn't need three officers whose main job was to write traffic tickets so that the town could collect the fines to cover the cost of the officers' salaries.

That left St. George's city council in charge of one snowplow and not much else.

Wilkerson won the election and immediately got to work making sure she would be the last mayor St. George ever had.

She engineered a referendum and, by the end of the year, she had persuaded enough people to vote to abolish their town. St. George disappeared into St. Louis County as an unincorporated territory.

Such reasonableness is rare in St. Louis County where the landscape is stuffed with tiny towns that make no sense.

Like Ferguson, the place that has been at the epicentre of racial tension since a black teenager, Michael Brown, was shot and killed by a white police officer, Darren Wilson, back in August.

Micro-burgs

In St. Louis County, two-thirds of the population, about 650,000 people, live in what are called "incorporated municipalities. There are 90 of them.

A few have city-sized populations. Ferguson's is about 21,000.

Fourteen have populations of fewer than 500. The smallest is Champ, population 12. The smallest area-wise is MacKenzie, which is about the size of 10 football fields.

Most stunning of all is that 58 of the 90 municipalities have their own police departments, which is where the perniciousness of the micro-burgs comes into view.

St. Louis County is littered with police whose main preoccupations seem to be writing traffic tickets and/or arresting people for not paying the tickets.

Ferguson, of course, is in it up to its eyeballs.

Fines and court fees are Ferguson's second largest source of revenue, bringing in just over $2.5 million last year.

How did all this happen?

Much of it began decades ago with the flight of people from the city of St. Louis to the fledgling suburbs.

At that time it was easier in St. Louis County than in other places for a small residential subdivision to turn itself into a city. Once that was done, the townsfolk controlled their own zoning and development.

In those pre-Civil Rights days a city would write covenants restricting who could buy or lease property within its boundaries.

The new city people were almost all white (Ferguson was 99 per cent white in 1970) and the people they wanted to keep out were black. So that's what they wrote into their covenants: no selling, renting or conveying in any way to Negroes.

When restrictive covenants were made unenforceable and blacks were free to move into new neighborhoods, whites moved out leaving behind the mosaic of tiny jurisdictions that exists today.

In many cases populations are too small to provide the tax base for a city, and so some of the tiniest towns have the most highly aggressive policing. They try to make up in traffic fines what they can't generate in property or sales taxes.

Bella Villa, for instance, a city with a population of about 800, is a tiny little speed trap. It has reportedly collected almost 60 per cent of its yearly budget through traffic fines.

Tax on the poor

The burden of such hyperactive traffic policing falls most heavily on the poorest.

It's they who have trouble finding the money to pay fines. It's they who may have to choose between driving illegally to work or not working. It's they who may be struggling just to feed a family.

A Washington Post investigation found community police and courts issuing minor traffic violations, then piling court fees on top of them, then arrest warrants, more fees, and eventually, though not finally, imprisonment.

All that for a traffic offense.

In those circumstances you don't have to be poor to start believing that the police are there not to protect and serve you, but to pinch and squeeze every nickel out of you in any way they can.

The situation is just one of those things in St. Louis County that "everybody knows."

What the shooting death of Michael Brown did was put a big, bright national spotlight on this municipal racket, and that is having an impact.

On Oct. 1, the city of St. Louis, which isn't part of St. Louis County, announced it had wiped roughly 220,000 outstanding arrest warrants from its files. These were warrants for non-violent law-breaking such as traffic violations.

"In light of Ferguson, we were thinking of how we could be more fair," said a spokesman for the mayor.

And in Ferguson itself the city council has announced plans to reform its court system and get rid of some of the penalties that have trapped people in a spiral of ever-increasing fines and fees.

That, at least, recognizes that there are aspects to law and order in St. Louis County that are really just played as nudge-nudge, wink- wink games at the tragic expense of poor people.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/in-riot-to ... -1.2858208

That article explains a LOT, oskar ~

I wish I could say I'm surprised, but it's really the picture I have of tiny towns all over mostly in southern and rural areas here in the US ~ what people don't seem to get is that services and infrastructure cost money ~ and the residents of those areas are responsible for the lion's share of those services and infrastructure thru some kind of taxes and fees ~ combining those 90 areas under the mantle of St Louis County services makes a lot of sense ~

There's a very long road to get to a level playing field, but the announced changes in both St Louis and in Ferguson itself are a strong start ~

Sooz

Also makes me wonder about the professionalism and competence of the Ferguson police.

As gently as I can let me point out that prejudice and bias and preconceived thoughts can be a flaw in all people's thinking patterns and liberals too are human and susceptible to the same flawed thinking. I think Ferguson is being judged a little harshly.

Excellent reminder, Cannalee ~ but Ferguson is being judged on the same statistics that are always used ~ demographics, crime, employment/unemployment, education, etc ~

What do you see as specifically being "... a little harshly"?

Sooz

Sorry, but no pass for cops who kill needlessly. They are criminals.

This says it all ~ that the lead prosecutor, Bob McCulloch, called Sandy McElroy to testify [twice!] despite knowing she was lying and her history of lying and racism, is un-frigging-real ~ IMO, Sandy McElroy should be prosecuted, Bob McCulloch should be censured at a minimum, and a new grand jury should be called ~ Sooz

Daily Kos / By Shaun King
4 Things that Should Happen Now That We Know the Truth about Witness #40, a White Supremacist
When Sandy McElroy was called before the grand jury, she had already been thoroughly discredited by the FBI.

December 20, 2014 | No eyewitness testimony was more consistent with Darren Wilson's personal story of events the day he shot and killed Michael Brown than that of Witness #40—who we now know as white supremacist Sandy McElroy.

Not only did Sandy McElroy testify before the grand jury twice, she was allowed to show what she claimed was her journal from the day Brown was killed. In the journal she said she decided to travel to a black neighborhood so she could learn to no longer "call blacks niggers." In the transcript of her testimony, in her back and forth with members of the grand jury, members are recorded as actually stating that they believe she's telling the truth.

What's clear now, and what was actually clear to the FBI and the prosecutors before she ever testified, is that Sandy McElroy wasn't anywhere near Canfield Drive the day Brown was killed and made her entire story up. Not only that, but Sandy McElroy was on record with the St. Louis police as having lied and concocted fanciful stories in other murder cases in which she falsely claimed to be a witness.

Her inclusion in the grand jury pool of witnesses poisoned the well and her testimony is the most quoted testimony of conservative pundits; Sean Hannity alone has quoted her at least 21 times in various broadcasts. In addition to her calling African Americans "apes" and saying police should "kill the niggers" in the aftermath of Brown's death, she regularly posted comments on various social networks showing her affection for Darren Wilson weeks and weeks before she ever claimed to be a witness.

The FBI, in its interrogation of Sandy McElroy, completely tore apart her story and proved that she never drove onto Canfield Drive, never drove off of Canfield Drive, was never seen on Canfield Drive, and couldn't find one person or photo or message before or after the event to confirm that she was ever there. She claimed she told her ex-husband all about what she saw, but he swore she didn't and he has problems remembering things.

Please read below the fold for more on McElroy's faulty testimony:

After telling the FBI that she was there to meet a friend she hadn't seen since 1987, she admitted to the grand jury that she actually lied about that and no such person existed. She then explained that she was actually on Canfield Drive in a different town the exact moment Brown was killed, in the exact spot where he was killed, on a solo ethnographic expedition to ease her own racism. It's a lie so preposterous that it feels dirty even repeating it.

Here's the thing, though. When Sandy McElroy was called before the grand jury, she had already been thoroughly discredited by the FBI not just as being a poor witness whose recollection is fuzzy, but as someone who didn't witness anything at all and was making it all up for the worst possible reasons. That she was allowed to testify before the grand jury on two different dates and produce fake evidence on her second trip is a scandal of epic proportions. That her testimony has become so popular among conservatives says as much about them as it does about Sandy McElroy.

Knowing all that we know about her testimony, here are four things that should happen immediately.

1. Sandy McElroy should be immediately charged with perjury. She was clearly told by the FBI and the prosecutors that lying about being there was a crime and was given chance after chance to back down. Instead she doubled down and added very specific and destructive details about what she saw Mike Brown do that day.

Furthermore, Sandy McElroy is not at all like an eyewitness who was actually there and sincerely believed she saw the events unfold in a way that may be different than the facts of the case. In her back and forth with the FBI, they even went so far as to clarify that it was not a crime to recall something you actually saw and state it in a way that is slightly off from what truly happened.

2. Sandy McElroy should be charged with creating and submitting false evidence which is a felony in Missouri and in most states. She completely and totally fabricated a journal months after the murder, never mentioned it to the FBI, and was allowed to actually show it to the prosecutors and grand jury as a form of proof she was telling the truth.

3. Prosecutor Bob McCulloch, who undoubtedly will not resign until hell freezes over and pigs fly, should at the very least explain why Sandy McElroy was called to testify. Having taken months and months to run the grand jury system, McCulloch was well aware of who she was, but clearly believed she should remain anyway.

4. A special prosecutor should be appointed and a new grand jury convened immediately. Gov. Jay Nixon still has the power to do such a thing—as does a circuit court judge in Missouri. Typically this would only happen in cases in which it can be proven that the prosecutor went out of his or her way to support the defendant in a case and the evidence for that in this case grows daily.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/4-things-should-happen-now-we-know-truth-about-witness-40-white-supremacist?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

Nope. No racism here, folks.

The grand jury process has nothing to do with the actual shooting. The grand jury process does seem to be corrupted by a desire to relieve the city of liability (I'm guessing) but that just shows the corruption that seems prevalent in today's justice system..doesn't mean the actual shoot was not justified. Corruption in some states apparently goes all the way to top A research into corruption in the State of Missouri for the past few decades might prove Interesting reading.

Everyone is corrupt except the cops?

The grand jury didn't base it's decision entirely on the testimony of Witness 40. There were at least 39 others (I think I read somewhere about there being 60 or more). It was after hearing all those witnesses that the grand jury came down and said there was not enough evidence to convict. Would you have preferred the jury came down and said go for it? Would you still have been bitching about Witness 40? Does it matter to anybody what the evidence actually is? It seems to me there's no need for a trial, except maybe a Guantanamo style kangaroo court, since the only acceptable outcome, regardless of what may be true, is guilty.

A grand jury isn't supposed to be a trial. In this particular case it was. That it became one is the weakness in the system.

EXACTLY, oskar! ~ when the process is tainted/corrupted, the decision is tainted/corrupted as well ~ and FTR, it is illegal for a prosecutor to present any evidence s/he knows to be false in Missouri ~

Sooz

Here's a solid explanation of McCullough's mistakes and a best-case scenario of which could/should happen now ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

A Startling Admission By The Ferguson Prosecutor Could Restart The Case Against Darren Wilson
by Judd Legum Posted on December 21, 2014 at 2:32 pm Updated: December 21, 2014 at 8:53 pm

Ferguson prosecutor Bob McCulloch admitted that he presented evidence he knew to be false to the grand jury considering charges against Darren Wilson. In an interview with radio station KTRS on Friday, McCulloch said that he decided to present witnesses that were “clearly not telling the truth” to the grand jury. Specifically, McCulloch acknowledged he permitted a woman who “clearly wasn’t present when this occurred” to testify as an eyewitness to the grand jury for several hours. The woman, Sandra McElroy, testified that Michael Brown charged at Wilson “like a football player, head down,” supporting Wilson’s claim that he killed Brown in self-defense.

McElroy, according to a detailed investigation by The Smoking Gun, suffers from bipolar disorder but is not receiving treatment and has a history of making racist remarks. In a journal entry, McElroy wrote that she was visiting Ferguson on the day of Michael Brown’s death because she wanted to “stop calling Blacks N****** and Start calling them people.” McElroy also has had trouble with her memory since being thrown through a windshield in a 2001 auto accident.


McCulloch’s prosecutorial team had McElroy testify to the grand jury over two days.

In intentionally presenting false testimony to the grand jury, McCulloch may have committed a serious ethical breach. Under the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct, lawyers are prohibited from offering “evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.”

McCulloch justified his actions by asserting that the grand jury gave no credence at all to McElroy’s testimony. But this is speculation. Under Missouri law, the grand jury deliberations are secret and McCulloch is not allowed to be present.

A Missouri lawmaker, Karla May, called Friday for a legislative investigation of McCulloch’s conduct. May said that there is evidence to suggest that McCulloch “manipulated the grand jury process from the beginning to ensure that Officer Wilson would not be indicted.”

Even before Friday’s interview, many legal experts were highly critical McCulloch’s use of the grand jury. Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, said she believed McCulloch “did not want an indictment” of Darren Wilson and turned the grand jury process on its head, acting as an advocate for the defense.

Mae Quinn, a law professor at Washington University School Of Law, told ThinkProgress that the unusual decision to present testimony he believed to be false to the grand jury — along with other atypical aspects of the prosecutor’s conduct in the Wilson case — could be an issue. “In terms of personal or professional interest playing a role in the grand jury process, I am struck by the double-bind we keep hearing about. That is, the county prosecutor feeling unable to simply present Darren Wilson’s case like any other without concern for perceived relationships with local law enforcement and others – and then making strategic decisions not singularly focused on representing the county,” Quinn said.

If Maura McShane, the Presiding Judge of the 21st Circuit, agrees with this assessment, she could appoint a new prosecutor and effectively restart the case against Darren Wilson.

Under Missouri law (MO Rev Stat § 56.110) the presiding judge of the court with criminal jurisdiction — in this case Judge McShane — can appoint another prosecutor if the prosecuting attorney demonstrates a conflict of interest or bias. Courts have interpreted this provision broadly to include “conflicts that reveal themselves through the prosecutor’s conduct in the case.” In State v. Copeland, a 1996 case, a Missouri court replaced the prosecutor because the judge “sensed that [the prosecutor’s] sympathies for [the defendant] may have prevented him from being an effective advocate for the state.” The judge “found the adversarial process to have broken down in that [the prosecutor] appeared to be advocating the defendant’s position.”

The recent admission that the prosecution knowingly presented false testimony to the grand jury builds on a pattern of conduct benefiting Wilson’s defense that could justify the appointment of a new prosecutor. This included: vouching for police conduct to the grand jurors, gentle questioning of Wilson himself and aggressive questioning of any witness adverse to Wilson’s defense.

A prosecutor handling any case where a law enforcement officer is accused of misconduct, nevermind one that attracts national attention, finds themselves in “a really hard position,” Quinn said. Quinn added that “[i]f such outside considerations weigh on the mind of a prosecutor, ultimately impacting the way a case is handled, that seems unfair not only to the victim and community – but the prosecutor, too. A special prosecutor in police cases, one who is insulated from these ongoing relationships and concerns, likely would engage in far less second-guessing and ancillary analyses.”

It’s now up to Judge McShane to decide if a new, independent prosecutor is warranted in the Darren Wilson case.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/12/21/3606084/how-a-startling-admission-from-the-ferguson-prosector-could-restart-the-case-against-darren-wilson/