Autopsy results enough to charge officer, Brown family attorney says

originally posted by: searching411
a reply to: amazing

I am sick of people immediately trashing people who put their lives on the line for the safety of others. I believe the majority of police officers and soldiers are moral and honorable. Dedication to their chosen career is proven time and again. Can you say the same?

I'd call it 50/50 right now. You have about a 50% chance of getting one of the good guys when you call or it could be one with a grudge, who's full of anger and prejudice. One who thinks he's above the law.

I am sick of people standing up for these goons.

from the autopsy report link
". A shot went off from within the car, Mr. Johnson said, and the two began to run away from the officer.

According to Ms. Mitchell, “The officer gets out of his vehicle,” she said, pursuing Mr. Brown, then continued to shoot.

Mr. Johnson said that he hid behind a parked car and that Mr. Brown was struck by a bullet in his back as he ran away, an account that Dr. Baden’s autopsy appears to contradict.

“Michael’s body jerks as if he was hit,” Ms. Mitchell said, “and then he put his hands up.” Mr. Brown turned, Mr. Johnson said, raised his hands, and said, “I don’t have a gun, stop shooting!”

Even if this is true, the moment the officer fired his pistol at a fleeing man and kills him, it becomes murder, not self defense.
Any normal citizen would and have been charged and found guilty in similar situations

articles.chicagotribune.com... ck-officers-bus-driver

Read this one. Crazy guy shot multiple times, still wanted to fight. Needed a taser to settle him down. Only in Chiraq!

a reply to: bigholm

Was he shot in the head, twice? I doubt an 18 y/o who wasn't high on coke, crack, pcp, or meth is trying to charge anyone after being shot 4 times on one side of his body.

But hey, if you're gonna make wild assumptions then so am I.

Btw, the man in your article appeared to be impaired, on what who knows. Brown may have been high on pot...

It sounds like the Brown family and lawyers are setting the stage for civil suits to be filed.I don't believe they need DA filing charges against the officer involved or his convicted to do this.If im wrong someone please correct me.

a reply to: TDawg61

You are correct. A civil suit is filed in civil court, the charges the District Attorney would file in this case would be in criminal court. The burden of proof is tougher in the latter and easier in the former.

a reply to: bigholm

What does this have to do with anything?

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

I disagree with you. I think both very much illustrate the problems in our society.

a reply to: TDawg61

they can try he will file for qualified immunity and mostlikely be immune from civil lawsuits
www.aele.org...

Because the immunity involved offe rs the officer relief not just from civil liability, but also from the burdens of litigation, a trial court’s denial of a defendant officer’s motion for qualified immunity is, with some exceptions, subject to immediate appeal. See Anderson v. Creighton , #85-1520, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) and Mitchell v. Forsyth , #84-335, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) In circumstances where the defens e of qualified immunity is upheld, an officer will not be found liable, even if their conduc t, such as the use of deadly force, actually could be said to have violated the plaintiff’s federal civil rights, so long as an objectively reasonable officer could ha ve believed, under the circumstances, that the conduct was lawful. A U.S. Supreme Court decision, Brosseau v. Haugen , No. 03-1261, 543 U.S. 194 (2004), illustrates the application of this principle in the context of the use of deadly force, and ruled that an officer who shot a fleeing felon motorist in the back was entitled to qualified immunity, when prior case law did not clearly establish that her conduct violated his Fourth Amendment rights. In this case, an officer learned that a man was wanted on a felony no-bail warrant for drugs and other offenses, a nd heard a report of a "ruckus" at his mother's house. The suspect attempted to fl ee in a vehicle, getting into a Jeep and trying to start it. The officer ran to th e Jeep with her handgun drawn and ordered him to stop. As the suspect fumbled with his keys, she hit the driver's side window several times with her handgun and, on the third or fourth try, broke the window. She had mace and a baton, but allegedly di d not use them, instead trying to grab the car keys.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

so if they declare the shoot lawful he is pretty much guaranteed to get immunity with the case law backed by supreme court rulings

originally posted by: thesmokingman
As far as how does a 6'4" man get shot on the top of the head? Well that is also consistent with a struggle. The suspect comes at the officer, his head is shoved down and the bullet is fired from a downward position. So how could him being shot on the top of the head have happened while he was "running away" or just had his arms in the air? Sorry, but this does not support the "family attorney" very well in my opinion.

Not sure if you've been following this close enough but both of your accounts of what happened are wrong. They ran after the first shot, then Brown was shot again at which time he turned around, placed his hands in the air and got to his knees. The officer then approached Brown and shot him point blank in the head.

originally posted by: FlySolo
They ran after the first shot, then Brown was shot again at which time he turned around, placed his hands in the air and got to his knees. The officer then approached Brown and shot him point blank in the head.

Dr. Baden, the forensic pathologist assisting the Brown family, did not even find anything remotely close to what you postulated. Mr. Brown was neither shot in the back, as evidence by the pathology report, or shot point blank, which Dr. Baden would have identified from burns around the entry wound.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Who said he was shot in the back? But he was shot in the head, was he not? Clearly, that's a kill shot away from the car and the 'struggle' so it would be impossible to shoot him in the head before they ran.

originally posted by: FlySolo
Who said he was shot in the back?

Mr. Johnson, who you cited as a source in your post.

But he was shot in the head, was he not? Clearly, that's a kill shot away from the car and the 'struggle' so it would be impossible to shoot him in the head before they ran.

He was indeed shot in the head, twice, and it appears highly unlikely that he would have been able to run after receiving either one.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Johnson never said he was shot in the back, he said " he shot again and once my friend felt that shot he put his hands up and started to get down. The officer approached with his weapon drawn and fired several more shots"

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Now could mr johnson be correct that he was shot at and thought that he was hit?
Something stopped brown from running and made him turn. If the officer shot and missed, djs account would still be correct, just incorrect in him saying it hit him

The "left-side arm" bullet could only hit there if :

He was running away
Had his hands up.
Stand still turn back

Why ?

When you stand still or run toward, your "Left side of your right arm" are facing your back...

Unless you move like a autopsie sheet, with you arm facing forward.

a reply to: FlySolo

You omitted the part where he said he turned around. Mr. Johnson said 'once he felt that shot he turned around'. Listen again.

a reply to: Sremmos80

That is a plausible possibility.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I was paraphrasing. But I'm not sure what that small detail reveals. He was running, felt a shot, turned around and surrendered. Then got shot in the head.

a reply to: FlySolo

It supported the narrative that Mr. Brown was shot in the back while fleeing which was incorrect based on the forensic report. It is a rather large detail as it now comes down to did Mr. Brown get shot while surrendering or charging.