CRIMINAL JUSTICE Why Darren Wilson wasnt charged for killing Michael Brown Updated by Jenée Desmond-Harris and Dara Lind on November 24, 2014, 9:55 p.m. ET By signing up, you agree to our terms. The grand jury responsible for deciding whether Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson should be indicted for the shooting death of Michael Brown has returned its answer: no. The Adobe Flash Player is required to view this content. Please click here to install it. Wilson wont be charged. He wont be arrested. He wont face any criminal consequences for shooting and killing the unarmed black 18-year-old on August 9. St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch made the announcement in a statement Monday night, during which he said that Wilson knew that Brown was a robbery suspect at the time he shot him. Still, many are wondering how its possible that 12 men and women whove been investigating the case since September didnt conclude that there was probable cause to believe a crime had occurred. After all, witnesses whove spoken to the media have given same basic description of Browns final moments: he had both hands in the air when Wilson fired the shots that killed him — a narrative that made hands up, dont shoot the rallying cry for protestors that flooded the streets of Ferguson after the shooting, demanding an indictment for Wilson. In his statement, McCulloch said that some of the witnesses changed their stories and were unreliable. Some of them, he said, were making it up. That determination explains in part why Wilson wasnt indicted. Here are the other reasons that this outcome was somewhat predictable. The law makes it easy not to charge police officers police officer on trial A rare sight: two California police officers on trial for the death of a homeless woman in 2011. (Paul Rodriguez/Pool/Getty) The grand jury had a lot of choices: it could have issued an indictment on one of four charges: first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter. But most of these werent realistic options. All along, legal experts have said that it was unlikely that Wilson would be charged with first-degree murder. That would have required evidence that he maliciously set out to kill Brown. Second-degree murder charges were theoretically possible, but this choice was unlikely if jurors decided that Wilson feared for his life when he killed Brown. If jurors concluded that Wilson was negligent when he shot Brown, they could have gone with a charge of voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. That was somewhat more likely. Its important to note that ten out of the twelve grand jurors would have had to agree to indict. That means only three jurors needed to agree that there wasnt enough evidence to charge Wilson — but thats still a lower standard than a full trial, where a jury would have to unanimously agree that he should be convicted. But heres the key fact: Wilson was a police officer. And the law is relatively easy on police officers who kill people in the line of duty. When police officers are allowed to use deadly force Militarized Police in Ferguson Police officers were armed during the protests following Browns death — but probably wouldnt have been justified in shooting. (Bilgin Sasmaz/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images) State laws, guided by a couple of Supreme Court precedents, have laid out a set of circumstances in which a cop killing a civilian is justifiable homicide. In the 1980s, a pair of Supreme Court decisions set up a framework for determining when deadly force by cops is reasonable. Missouris state law on justifiable homicide is older than that — but the Supreme Court decisions have governed how it can be applied. POLICE OFFICERS ARE ALLOWED TO SHOOT UNDER TWO CIRCUMSTANCES The Court says that police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances, David Klinger, a criminologist at the University of Missouri-St. Louis and a former police officer, told Vox in August. One circumstance is to protect their life or the life of another innocent party — what departments call the defense-of-life standard. The other circumstance is to prevent a suspected violent felon from escaping. The St. Louis County grand jury had to have decided that at least one of these applied — or both. The Ferguson Police Department has said that Brown was a suspect in a strong-arm robbery (which St. Louis County prosecutor Robert McCulloch says counts as robbery in the second degree, a felony) at a convenience store that occurred just before he was stopped by Wilson. Previously, officials had been inconsistent on whether Wilson actually knew about the robbery when he stopped Brown, although McCulloch said Monday that Wilson did know. If the grand jury was convinced that Wilson believed Brown to be a violent felon, the police officer would still only be able to claim that he was justified — if Brown was fleeing when Wilson fired at him. Was it objectively reasonable for Wilson to fear for his life? Brown family autopsy A press conference reveals the results of an independent autopsy of Michael Browns body. (Joe Raedle/Getty) Given whats known about Wilsons account of the shooting, its most likely that the grand jury decided Wilson was justified under defense-of-life — that he feared for his life when Brown (in his telling) assaulted him in his car and tried to grab at his gun. In that case, the next question will be whether it was reasonable for him to be afraid of Brown. Under the law, it doesnt matter if Brown ever intended to hurt Wilson. What matters is the officers objectively reasonable belief that he was a threat. That puts a lot of weight on an officers immediate instincts in judging whos dangerous. Forensic records indicate that the final two shots Wilson fired, the ones that killed Brown, were fired into the top of Browns bowed head. Several eyewitnesses have said that Brown was attempting to surrender when the final shots were fired, whereas Wilsons account (which has only been heard publicly secondhand) is that Browns head was down because he was trying to charge at Wilson. IT DOESNT MATTER IF BROWN EVER INTENDED TO HURT WILSON — WHAT MATTERS IS WHETHER WILSON HAD A REASONABLE BELIEF Those last shots were important, because each use of deadly force has to be evaluated separately to determine if it was justified. The moment that you no longer present a threat, I need to stop shooting, said Klinger. Of course, he added, theres a difference between the moment you cease to be a threat and the moment I perceive that you ceased to be a threat. Walter Katz, a California attorney who specializes in oversight of law enforcement agencies — particularly during use-of-force investigations — told Vox in August that that if an officer has been assaulted and the suspect runs away, the officers threat assessment is probably going to be shaped by having just been assaulted. Jurors may have chosen not to indict because they decided that each time Wilson shot Brown, he reasonably believed Brown represented a threat to him or others. How could they conclude that Wilsons belief that Brown posed a threat was reasonable, if the teen had his hands up when Wilson fired his last shots — as many eyewitnesses have publicly said? McCulloch suggested the jurors were presented with conflicting eyewitness testimony about Brown and Wilsons interactions in the moments before the deadly shots were fired, and the story witnesses told the media is not the same story jurors necessarily heard. The prosecutors tactics made a charge less likely Ferguson protesters Protesters calling for the indictment of Darren Wilson in October. (Scott Olson/Getty) McCulloch, the St. Louis County prosecutor, had a lot of discretion when it came to how to handle this case, and he used it in ways that experts said could have made an indictment less likely. Instead of telling the grand jury what charges Wilson should face and letting the jurors hear from a detective or a couple of main witnesses, McCulloch chose to present them with every single piece of available evidence and hear every single witness — every scrap of evidence, as he put it — and let them decide for themselves. Alex Little, a former federal prosecutor who spent six years trying violent crimes, including homicides, told Voxs Amanda Taub in August that the strategy raised concerns about McCullochs commitment to seeking justice in the case: So when a District Attorney says, in effect, well present the evidence and let the grand jury decide, thats malarkey. If he takes that approach, then hes already decided to abdicate his role in the process as an advocate for justice. At that point, theres no longer a prosecutor in the room guiding the grand jurors, and — more importantly — no state official acting on behalf of the victim, Michael Brown... Then, when you add to the mix that minorities are notoriously underrepresented on grand juries, you have the potential for nullification — of a grand jury declining to bring charges even when there is sufficient probable cause. Thats the real danger to this approach. Kevin Curran, president of the Missouri Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, told Vox that the choice to use this tactic instead of presenting an advocates case — which McCulloch could have done by arguing for one ore more specific charges against Wilson using a few key witness statements — made an indictment much less likely. THE SHEER VOLUME OF EVIDENCE THE GRAND JURY HEARD COULD LEAD THEM TO BELIEVE THERE WASNT PROBABLE CAUSE And the sheer volume of evidence they heard made it more likely that theyd be left to grapple with the type of conflicting statements that could lead them to conclude that there was not probable cause that a crime had occurred, Curran said. In an interview Voxs Amanda Taub conducted with David Rudovsky, an expert in police prosecutions, he explained that various stages of the criminal justice process — from being investigated by police peers, to being prosecuted by attorneys who work closely with police, to natural jury bias toward law enforcement — makes it rather rare for cops to go to jail for misconduct on the job. This plays out not just in Ferguson, but across the nation. CARD 1 OF 13 LAUNCH CARDS Who was Michael Brown? 11 things you should know about the Michael Brown shooting 13 CARDS / EDITED BY GERMAN LOPEZ UPDATED NOV 24 2014, 10:20P In this StoryStream Ferguson grand jury decision: the latest updates 10:07P The most tone deaf moment in the St. Louis County prosecutor’s speech 9:55P Why Darren Wilson wasnt charged for killing Michael Brown 9:35P Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson wont face criminal charges for killing Michael Brown 8 updates Read This Why Obama is firing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel Taylor Swift says streaming is bad for artists. Is she right? Obamas executive action on immigration, explained in 2 minutes A helpful interactive map of Americas unauthorized immigrants Why gynecologists think IUDs are the best contraceptive Why are organic turkeys so expensive? SHARE ON TWITTER (605) SHARE ON FACEBOOK (247) +1 SHARE ON LINKEDIN EMAIL PRINT vox v1.3, September 5, 2014 / Terms of Use / Privacy Policy © 2014 Vox Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved All Systems Operational Check out our status page for more details. Get Vox in your inbox! By signing up, you agree to our terms. Advertise with us Jobs @ Vox Media Contact us tracking_pixel_10934_tracker
Posted on: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 03:24:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015