EXCLUSIVE: Darren Wilson, the Ferguson, Mo., police officer whose fatal shooting of Michael Brown touched off more than a week of demonstrations, suffered severe facial injuries, including an orbital (eye socket) fracture, and was nearly beaten unconscious by Brown moments before firing his gun, a source close to the department's top brass told FoxNews.com.
Even assuming all of this is true it does not matter when it comes to the officer shooting Brown.
[...]
Here's the problem -- whether it's a good shoot or manslaughter (at best) turns entirely on whether Brown was actively assaulting the officer when he was shot because the legal justification to shoot him for the previous assault ended when that assault terminated.
My issue with the claim that it was a good shoot predicated on the above is the following:
- How could Brown have heard a command to stop when his ears were, seconds before, a few inches from a weapon that discharged in a confined space with no hearing protection? I don't recommend you try reproducing this on your own, by the way. If the "command" was in fact shots fired at his back (which Brown could hear, deafened or not, and of course if he was hit in the hand, which is possible from a ballistics perspective, he'd feel that).....
- The evidence does not support that Brown went for the officer's gun and it discharged during said altercation. Specifically, there was no evidence of powder residue anywhere on Brown, including his hands. I assume for the moment there is physical evidence of a discharge in the vehicle (somewhere in the vehicle there is a hole from the inside out, etc.) -- but to assert that Brown caused the discharge or was within inches of the weapon when it happened should have deposited evidence of same on his body, and that evidence is missing.
- Show me the ballistics and geometric solution that allows an average-height man to shoot a 6'4" guy, who is roughly 6" taller than the officer, in the head and face with the known angles of entry and (for the shot to the eye) exit while that man is on his feet, charging or not. He did not fall to his knees while charging as the autopsy showed no abrasions on his knees or legs -- inescapable injuries if you are charging someone, are shot, and fall forward on pavement. The only abrasion injury was a very light and flat-forward impact injury to Brown's face consistent with a face-first fall from a stationary position. He thus could not have suffered the fatal shots in a scenario where he is hit superficially in the arm or hand, falls to his knees while running and thus presents the necessary angle for the last two rounds to go into his head that are being fired at an actively-charging suspect.
You have to get past these facts that get in the way of the claims in the Fox News story, and you have to do it with physical facts, not supposition, because the physical evidence released to date points the other way.
If you can do that then the shoot was good and I'll change my mind; anyone, including this officer, is within his rights to shoot a man that is at that instant in time presents a credible threat of assault to do great bodily harm or worse, and Brown, according to this story, had demonstrated his ability to do exactly that.
But if you can't get past the above problems with objective evidence the officer needs to charged with and convicted of either Manslaughter or Murder 2.
