I read an 18-page story online by writers for The Washington Post in which they detailed the Ferguson, Missouri shooting of Michael Brown tragedy. My thoughts are that the article was written from a professional and objective perspective but it seemed to me to be favorably skewed toward law enforcement. That is probably because I am in favor of a jury trial and biased by the decision of the grand jury not to indict.
The writers covered a lot of material while trying to keep the length of the article reasonable so even if it was skewed in favor of law enforcement, it would be unfair to say that they purposely did this so must be given the benefit of the doubt. There are a number of reasons why I say that it was skewed in favor of law enforcement and I will explain those reasons in this article.
The sad fact is that this article will not be read by the masses anytime soon and when it is read, it will be read by far fewer people than the number that read the one in The Washington Post. To even say ‘far fewer’ is an understatement; in reality I could easily say 0.000001 people and still likely be too high. But I will tell it from a victim’s perspective anyway.
I will also provide a link to the story in The Washington Post following this article so that you can read the entire story for yourself should you decide to. If for any reason the link does not work properly, the title of the article is “In three minutes, two lives collide and a nation divides.” Do a computer search for the article under that exact title and you will find it. Six writers contributed to the story; five in Washington and one in Ferguson.
The Washington Post’s story begins to chronicle Michael Brown’s last day alive on this earth starting shortly before noon. By the time that it ends 18 pages later it is only shortly past 12:01 p.m., which is about the time that Officer Darren Wilson radioed the following message that included his call signal – Frank 21 – after he encountered Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson on Canfield: “Frank 21, I’m on Canfield with two, send me another car.”
It started with Michael Brown striking up a conversation with a contractor who was trying to cut away some tree roots with his hatchet. The article says that Michael Brown talked to the contractor for about half an hour before he left and returned a short time later with his friend, Dorian Johnson. They talked briefly with the contractor before they headed off to the market where Michael Brown would strong-arm the clerk and take some small cigars.
The clerk reported the robbery and a description of Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson was broadcasted to the police. When Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson turned onto Canfield they had a chance-meeting with Officer Wilson. That is where things quickly went wrong and escalated and Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown to death.
The Washington Post story said that Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown at least six times and that by the time he stopped shooting, his magazine was empty. All evidence of the shooting was turned over to a grand jury so that they could determine whether or not Officer Wilson should be indicted for killing Mr. Brown.
The Washington Post story went on to say that “no video of the incident has emerged, leaving the nation, like the grand jury that completed its work two weeks ago, dependent on a vast encyclopedia of evidence, a mountain of witness statements, forensic reports and police narratives. It all adds up to a close consensus on the basic chronology of events and wildly varying interpretations of a few key moments. Scientific analysis can determine how many times Brown was shot, where he was standing, even what direction he was moving in. But the only window into Brown’s intentions come from witnesses, and what they saw blended all too confusingly with who they are. What witnesses saw was sufficient to persuade the grand jurors not to indict Wilson…”
After this statement The Washington Post story cites statements made by various witnesses and that is where it starts to skew favorably toward law enforcement and lose sight of the victims’ perspective. Again, I want to emphatically add that the writers covered a tremendous amount of material in 18 pages so must be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the question of whether or not the skew was deliberate.
It seems to me that the story was skewed favorably toward law enforcement because it seemed to be making a subtle effort to justify the grand jury’s decision by explaining that the jurors were saddled with a large amount of evidence, much of which was challenging and confusing because of witnesses incongruent statements. But this only supports the need for a transparent trial rather than giving all evidence to a grand jury and charging it with making a decision in secret.
It is important to remember that the grand jury is not responsible to determine Officer Wilson’s guilt or innocence. The grand jury’s responsibility is to determine whether or not there is enough evidence to show that there is probable cause to have Officer Wilson face a jury trial. That jury would then weigh all of the evidence and determine whether he is guilty or innocent and both the prosecuting attorney and defending attorney would have the opportunity to cross-examine the other’s witnesses.
Following are some specific examples from the story in The Washington Post that caught my attention:
- “When one witness told the grand jury that she was certain Brown had charged Wilson, the prosecutor pushed back: ‘You characterize it as a “charge;” could he have been staggering?’ The witness stuck with her account.”
“On another day, when a witness said he was certain that Brown had tried to surrender to Wilson, the prosecutor again pushed back, from the opposite direction: “It does not appear he was charging the officer?” No, the witness said, ‘he was not charging’.”
It would not be unfair to describe what the prosecutor did in both of these instances as a gentle nudge rather than a pushback. Can you imagine what a defense attorney or prosecuting attorney would have done upon cross-examination in this situation? A trial by jury would have been better. It would have been better perceived by the citizens of Ferguson and by the rest of America.
- “One witness who testified to the grand jury, 19-year-old Piaget Crenshaw, said in an interview with The Post that although the jurors let her give her full account, she thought prosecutors were not paying attention. Crenshaw said she saw Brown put his arms up to let them know that he was compliant.”
If this is true, it sent a message – whether intentional or not – that the prosecutors either felt that this witness was unreliable or that she was not credible. It is unlikely that this kind of conduct would have happened in a jury trial, and if it had, it would have been challenged.
- “Witness No. 46, a woman who was listening to gospel music in her car, said she heard Brown say ‘I don’t have anything,’ loudly, ‘in a holler voice.’ That same witness said Brown kept calling out to the officer even as bullets flew: The boy kept saying, I got, my hands is up, I don’t have anything, what do you want’.”
Again, a jury trial would have been better for the purpose of arriving at what really happened, better perceived by citizens of Ferguson and the rest of America, and a verdict of Officer Wilson’s guilt or innocence would have been better accepted.
- “Another man, who had stepped outside his apartment after the first gunshots, said he heard Brown say, ‘Don’t shoot me, stop shooting.’
“With so many versions flying about, the grand jury pressed some witnesses to be more precise. ‘I need to know what you heard, not what you think you heard,’ one juror told the man who’d come out of his apartment.
The man replied: ‘He was getting pierced by some bullets. He was pleading for his life’.”
- “Brown’s hands ‘were down at his sides’ (Witness No. 30), or they were ‘into the air’ (Witness No. 16). Witness No. 10 said Brown ‘turned around and he did some type of movement. I never seen him put his hands up or anything… I’m not sure if he pulled his pants up or, or whatever he did, but I seen some type of movement and he started charging the police officer’.”
- ” ‘It wasn’t really a run,’ said witness No. 44, ‘cuz he didn’t get far. Well, after he stopped, he turned around, and he put his hands about shoulder length. It wasn’t in the air like everybody doin’.’ This witness said Brown was ‘scrunching forward’ but not moving toward the officer. (Later, the witness said it was possible that Brown did come forward toward Wilson but that the witness had turned away and missed that.)”
The fact that different witnesses saw different things or gave different versions of what they saw is not uncommon. The fact that Michael Brown was shot multiple times, including shots to his face and the top of his head, and a number of witnesses said that his hands were raised when he was shot all but demanded an indictment. It should not matter whether his hands were shoulder-level, head-level, or high above his head.
The decision to shoot Michael Brown should have been based on whether or not he was still a threat to Officer Wilson at the time that he was killed. A regular jury would have been a better way to determine to the best degree possible if he was.
Following this article is a link to the story in The Washington Post that I said I would provide you with. You can read the entire story for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
Eulus Dennis