Okay guys here it is, my thoughts on the Ferguson shooting. Resolved: Darren Wilson should be prosecuted for the shooting of Michael Brown. I would like to begin my argument by revisiting sophomore year Logic and Practical Reasoning class and touch on the topic of a “Red Herring.” A Red Herring is a fallacy in conflict in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. This sort of reasoning has the following form: 1. Topic A is under discussion. 2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). 3. Topic A is abandoned. (The Nizkor Project) I would now like to (simply) outline in the same way what I believe to be the “Red Herrons” of the tragic events that occurred in Ferguson, Mo. August 9th-present. 1. Officer Darren Wilson shoots Michael Brown during altercation 2. Officer Wilson is white and Michael Brown is black, this is about race 3. Officer Darren is bad and guilty of murdering an innocent man because of his race 1. Officer Darren Wilson shoots Michael Brown during altercation 2. Michael Brown was a thug, look at his background 3. Wilson did his job by shooting Brown, the bad guy. The issue has gone from whether Officer Wilson was acting within police protocol and his rights- as well as Brown’s rights- by shooting suspect Michael Brown, (use of deadly force) or not, to being about discrimination that targeted Michael Brown because of his race or about how Michael Brown was a thug and Officer Wilson was doing his duty. But neither of those arguments are what we should be focusing our attention on. With that in mind, I would now like to go back a little further in time and touch on a Supreme Court case, “Tennessee v. Garner” and begin my argument that Officer Darren Wilson should be prosecuted for the shooting of Michael Brown. October 1974, two Memphis Police Department officers were dispatched to answer a burglary call. The events of that night are as follows: “At about 10:45 p. m. on October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Officers Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright were dispatched to answer a “prowler inside call.” Upon arriving at the scene they saw a woman standing on her porch and gesturing toward the adjacent house. She told them she had heard glass breaking and that “they” or “someone” was breaking in next door. While Wright radioed the dispatcher to say that they were on the scene, Hymon went behind the house. He heard a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The fleeing suspect, who was appellee-respondent’s decedent, Edward Garner, stopped at a 6-feet-high chain link fence at the edge of the yard. With the aid of a flashlight, Hymon was able to see Garner’s face and hands. He saw no sign of a weapon, and, though not certain, was “reasonably sure” and “figured” that Garner was unarmed. App. 41, 56; Record 219. He thought Garner was 17 or 18 years old and 4*4 about 5′ 5″ or 5′ 7″ tall. While Garner was crouched at the base of the fence, Hymon called out “police, halt” and took a few steps toward him. Garner then began to climb over the fence. Convinced that if Garner made it over the fence he would elude capture, Hymon shot him. The bullet hit Garner in the back of the head. Garner was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where he died on the operating table. Ten dollars and a purse taken from the house were found on his body.” (copblock.org) During that time, Tennessee statute and Memphis Police Department policy authorized the use of deadly force against fleeing suspects. The statute stated that if, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resists, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest.” (caselaw.lp.findlaw) The father went on to make the case that his son’s constitutional rights had been violated by the officer’s actions and took it to court. The District Court held that the officer’s actions were constitutional; however, the Court of Appeals found that the officer had in fact violated Garner’s rights under the 4th amendment in that by shooting and killing Garner the officer “seized” him. All of that leads us to this ruling by the Supreme Court case Tennessee v. Garner: The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting him dead. (Amanda Taub/Vox) Turning our attention to the case at hand, we see that Officer Darren Wilson, for his actions, his shooting of Michael Brown to be legally justified, he had to believe that Brown was a threat to his life or someone else’s or that Brown was a suspect in a violent crime. If Officer Wilson can’t prove either reason to be true then he was acting wrongfully in his use of deadly force and therefore violating Brown’s rights under the Fourth Amendment. 563.026. 1. Unless inconsistent with other provisions of this chapter defining justifiable use of physical force, or with some other provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute any crime other than a class A felony or murder is justifiable and not criminal when it is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability of avoiding the injury outweighs the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the crime charged. (moga.mo.gov) Week one: The morning of Friday August 15th Police Chief Tom Jackson releases Officer Darren Wilson’s name to the public as the officer responsible for the death of Michael Brown, describing Wilson as a “six-year veteran with no disciplinary record.” (Washingtonpost) Jackson then releases information and a police report about a convenience store robbery that occurred just before the shooting naming Michael Brown as a suspect. Later on in the afternoon, however, when Police Chief Jackson was questioned as to why he released that information about the robbery, he replied “It was in response to media requests.” (Washingtonpost) Whatever that means. Police Chief Jackson then goes on to make a statement that Officer Wilson was not aware that Michael Brown was suspect in the convenience store robbery just minutes before the shooting. “The initial contact with Brown was not related to the robbery. -Police Chief Tom Jackson. (Washingtonpost) He went on to say that Officer Wilson wasn’t responding to a call about the robbery like initially reported and that he was stopping Brown for jaywalking. However, a little later, Jackson told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that, “… after the initial stop, Wilson realized Brown could be the suspect of the robbery when he spotted the potentially stolen cigars in Browns hand.” Either he knew about the robbery and knew the description of the suspect/what was stolen or he didn’t Chief Jackson, which is it? I find it hard to believe that an officer wouldn’t be, not only aware of all incidents occurring around his 10-20 (location), but also current on information pertaining to all incidents such as the description of the suspect or suspects and the nature of the crime committed. By that I mean that I find it highly unlikely that Officer Wilson approached Brown unaware of his involvement in the robbery and as stated on the official police report/incident report from the convenience store robbery, the nature of the crime was “strong arm robbery.” No mention of Brown being armed. Some may argue that “strong arm robbery” could be considered a violent crime but that’s another argument. This robbery, as supported by video surveillance, should not be considered violent crime worthy of use of deadly force to apprehend the suspect, otherwise, we are back in 1974 with the death of a fifteen year old over boy ten dollars and a purse. If Officer Wilson knew that Michael Brown was a suspect in a robbery before their encounter he would have also known that he wasn’t armed from the details shared on the police report- noting if a suspect is armed is top priority of police officers- and his use of deadly force is therefore not justified by Brown being allegedly suspect of a violent crime. And on the other side, even if Officer Wilson was completely unaware of Michael Brown’s alleged involvement in a robbery before their encounter it would still make his use of deadly force unjustified. Sources like the New York Times have reported that Wilson will most likely claim self-defense, but, as evidenced by the autopsies performed Brown was shot six times, facing Wilson, and several feet away. In fact, it is reported that Brown died 35 feet from the police car. Why, if Brown was so far away, would there be any need for the officer to shoot to kill? What threat is that? The autopsy shows that the final, fatal bullet went into the front of Brown’s forehead at an angle that suggests his head was lowered. That can mean one of two things, 1. Brown was in a stance that indicated he was charging towards Officer Wilson as reported by some eye witnesses or 2; Brown’s head was lowering as his arms were rising in a sign of surrender as reported by other eye witnesses when he was shot and killed. Because there are so many different eye witness accounts we can only go on facts- facts that tell us that Brown was feet away from Wilson when he was killed and if Officer Wilson was in true fear for his life at that point then he is in the wrong career and should admit to his inadequacy and accept the consequences. Officers are trained to handle situations involving high risk, hand to hand combat, 7 foot, 8 foot, 200lbs or not, they are trained to remain level headed and unbiased and it’s clear that Wilson was not making decisions clearly as he was trained. I don’t believe Officer Wilson had justified reason to use deadly force in this situation. I believe without a shadow of a doubt the death of Michael Brown could have been and should have been avoided. We have got to start taking personal responsibility for actions- which have consequences- in this country. Undoubtedly there are stereotypes in our society that we all get branded into our minds that we should try to let go, but, I also fully believe that those stereotypes create themselves. Brown needs to be held accountable by his family and friends for his own actions that led him to that fateful encounter as well as Officer Wilson. Whatever the altercation between Brown and Wilson was about, it was instigated undeniably by Officer Wilson who approached Brown. As a police officer who has been trained, a “seven year veteran,” nonetheless, he [Wilson] should have approached the situation differently, handled it differently and given Brown the respect that he deserved as a citizen of the United States that he vowed to protect and serve. Tennessee V. Garner, Florida V. Zimmerman… Wilson V. Brown. The rift is getting deeper, there is a war being fought that no one can win because it’s not about race- it is about lack of responsibility being taken by both sides- by everyone - and we have a chance to start making a change now. Officer Wilson needs to be held accountable for his actions. Are we going to take a stand now and show that the police will be held accountable for the unjustified murder of the people they’ve sworn to protect or will we let this tear us further apart to avoid facing the real issue we still have deep inside our country. Racism is still alive and it must be attended to, it must be cured- Officer Wilson might not have killed Brown out of racism but whatever the reason it was unjustified and this doesn’t need to be swept under the rug as self-defense to avoid the real issue.
Posted on: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 15:52:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015