![\"\"](\"http:\/\/news.bbcimg.co.uk\/media\/images\/77159000\/jpg\/_77159481_police_standoff.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Since early August, the country\u2019s eyes have been fixed on a small St. Louis suburb.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
If you\u2019re reading this, you likely know the story, but here are the events (and where witness accounts differ):<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
When the grand jury\u2019s decision to not indict was announced, I waited anxiously for the promised document dump by the prosecutor\u2019s office.\u00a0 I wanted to see what the grand jury saw.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Once the documents were released<\/a>,\u00a0I began reading through them.\u00a0 One of my initial reactions, which other<\/a> commentators<\/a> have pointed out<\/a>\u00a0(including how different this grand jury was compared to Justice Scalia’s description<\/a> of the grand jury process in 1992’s\u00a0US v. Williams<\/em>), was the apparent grilling of witnesses with story\u2019s contrary to Officer Wilson\u2019s and the casual, non-confrontational questioning of both Wilson and the witnesses who supported him.\u00a0 As I read through the documents, I thought, \u201cyou could get an indictment here.\u201d\u00a0 We have an officer shooting an unarmed man who\u00a0the officer more or less believed was unarmed.\u00a0 We then have conflicting stories as to who escalated and what happened in the final moments.\u00a0 These conflicts are what a jury at trial would resolve.\u00a0 But on the basic facts that an officer shot an unarmed man and we have conflicting testimony as to how much of a threat the suspect posed to the officer, an indictment for SOME charge should\u00a0be likely.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n But even if there was an indictment, could the prosecutor’s office secure a conviction?\u00a0 It seems unlikely.\u00a0 Based on Graham<\/em><\/a>, we essentially have to take Officer Wilson\u2019s description of his state of mind at his word.\u00a0 And with that standard, I don\u2019t think you can convict beyond a reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Think\u00a0about that: An officer shot a man who was unarmed, and the officer essentially knew the man was unarmed, but under existing law he probably could not be convicted.\u00a0 There\u2019s a problem with the law when that\u2019s the reality.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This is not to say that Michael Brown was clearly in the right in this situation or that because he was a \u201cgood kid\u201d who was about to go to college this is suddenly a tragic event. \u00a0First,\u00a0there’s a very real counter narrative that Brown was someone who just committed robbery and assaulted an officer. \u00a0But this does not mean he was suddenly “bad”–it’s difficult to judge a person’s entire character based on a few isolated events. \u00a0More importantly, merely being in the right or the wrong or being “good” or “bad”\u00a0should not be the marker of who does and who does not have the right to live.\u00a0 If a citizen is unarmed, and the officer is relatively sure that he is unarmed (while Wilson never frisked Brown, he also said in his statement that Brown\u2019s hands were empty; it up for debate whether Brown\u2019s hand was reaching into his waistband just before the fatal shots were fired or if they were out at his sides), why should the use of lethal force be justified when there are so many more options?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n That\u2019s also not to say that Officer Wilson or police in general should be hamstrung in defending themselves from threats. \u00a0I was fortunate enough to go through a day at police academy several years ago with the LAPD when I was working with the office of Mayor Villaraigosa.\u00a0 One of the trainings they ran us through was a video simulation of when it is proper\u00a0to use your gun in the line of duty. \u00a0We ran through various scenarios–someone tries to carjack you, you respond to a call, you respond to a suspected terrorist threat, and so on. \u00a0Going through these scenarios, you A) understood how strict the protocols are for when you can and can not brandish your weapon and B) how easy it is, in an instant, to mistake some other object for a gun, especially if movements are sudden. \u00a0Being a police officer is an extremely stressful and difficult job.\u00a0 I\u2019ve spoken with officers who respond to late night calls in areas where they can\u2019t entirely see their surroundings but know that someone is around the corner with a weapon, thinking that this call may be their last. \u00a0In that scenario, it is easy to see where someone popping out from the woodworks may result in a knee-jerk reaction to shoot.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n But that was not the case\u00a0in Ferguson. \u00a0Michael Brown was unarmed and there was no reason to believe he had a deadly weapon. \u00a0I remember the training officer repeatedly telling us to keep our weapon holstered until either we saw or knew that the suspect had a gun.\u00a0 That didn\u2019t happen here.\u00a0 Nor was Michael Brown holding or waving some shiny object that, in an instant, Officer Wilson believed could be a gun.\u00a0 His hands were empty.\u00a0 Officer Wilson also didn\u2019t think he was pursuing someone who had just killed multiple people.\u00a0 According to Officer Wilson, he thought that this MAY have been the guy who stole a few cigarillos (but the interview Wilson gave the day after the shooting<\/a> states he heard the suspect was a black male in a black t-shirt, while Michael Brown was dressed in white).\u00a0 When you put everything together, it simply doesn\u2019t seem right that an unarmed man who stole some cigarillos was shot and killed by law enforcement.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Brown may very well have assaulted an officer. \u00a0But the last time I checked, the penalty for assaulting a police officer is not death. \u00a0Had he been apprehended alive, Brown would have likely been charged with either assault of an officer in the first degree<\/a> (attempts to kill or causes\/attempts to cause serious physical injury) or, more likely, assault of an officer in the second degree<\/a> (causes\/attempts to cause physical injury). \u00a0Second degree assault can either be a Class B Felony (5-15 years in prison) or Class C Felony (max of 7 years in prison)<\/a>. \u00a0I personally think it would be a Class C Felony here, based on 565.082 (2)’s language of “by means other than a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument,” which falls into the Class C category. \u00a0All these penalties are significantly less than death. \u00a0If Brown had a weapon and Office Wilson knew that if he did not shoot Brown then Brown would shoot him, we as a nation are not having this conversation. \u00a0I think everyone sees that situation as clearly different. \u00a0But\u00a0it doesn\u2019t seem right that Brown, being unarmed, is killed and that there isn’t even a charge of wrongdoing against the officer. \u00a0Especially when compared to another officer in St. Louis, with his case handled by the same prosecutor\u2019s office, being charged with assault<\/a> for using his baton. \u00a0The lesson seems to be–if you shoot an unarmed\u00a0suspect and say you feared for your life, you’re in the clear, but if you do something less drastic, you may have to answer for it.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n If everything laid out above\u00a0doesn\u2019t quite seem right, doesn’t seem fair in a nation that prides itself on the fairness and equality of all before the law, then people will want to see change.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n