| But what if Brown wasn't attacking the officer but defending himself? Dorian Johnson's story is that Wilson almost ran them over, slammed his door into them, and then grabbed Brown and pulled him through the window. IF Michael Brown is struggling to get free after being unnecessarily assaulted by Wilson and then sees Wilson draw his gun then of course he is going to strike the officer trying to flee. And this is why the situation is so troubling. The witness testimony is all over the place and unreliable (as it usually is), and it leaves open huge variations in how the events transpired. Yes, Wilson was struck somehow. But we don't know who initiated the conflict and that has a huge bearing on what happens next. Yes, Brown was shot in the car. But we have no idea if he actually got ahold of the gun in Wilsons hand and was aiming it at Wilson. Wilson could have simply pulled the gun out and started firing. Yes, we know that Brown ran away and was chased. Yes, we know he was shot facing Wilson. But we don't know if he was standing still surrendering or charging. I've read a huge chunk of the grand jury testimony and looked at a lot of the evidence and the only reasonable conclusion that you can come to is "I don't know what happened". two other things. First, I'm sure most people believe that if a police officer tells you to do something you do it. That might be really good advice, especially if you have brown skin, but I think it's not reasonable to blindly obey over-aggressive and unfounded requests just because the person has a badge. Second, police tend to escalate situations way beyond what is necessary and my gut says the Ferguson event is a perfect example if you hedge against Wilsons whitewashed version. One more thing...police need to be evaluated on a different metric then simply arrests. Killing a fleeing suspect should almost always be an intolerable event inside the police department. Letting the guy get away is almost always the better alternative (almost being the key word). But, as you said, that would get the officer in trouble. Which is just dumb. |
> But what if Brown wasn't attacking the officer but defending himself?
We actually got into a bit of a debate at dinner discussing if you have the right to defend yourself against an unjust arrest -- short version: "nope". In 1900 there was a case that went that way, but since then it was been reversed... and even more specifically overruled in various state ordinances. Even if you did have the right to physical resist (again, you don't, so don't resist arrest) an "unjust arrest" ... you aren't informed of the reason you are being arrested at the time of arrest, you don't have enough information to even claim it is unjust.
> If Michael Brown is struggling to get free after being unnecessarily assaulted by Wilson and then sees Wilson draw his gun then of course he is going to strike the officer trying to flee.
This is put forth as factual "of course". But, it isn't the common case -- most people when assaulted (justified or not) by a police officer surrender, and if it escalates to having a gun drawn... they... you guessed it, surrender. The vast majority of police officers make it to retirement without firing their weapon while on duty.
> First, I'm sure most people believe that if a police officer tells you to do something you do it. That might be really good advice, especially if you have brown skin, but I think it's not reasonable to blindly obey over-aggressive and unfounded requests just because the person has a badge.
You can think what you want, but you have NO RIGHT to EVER resist arrest, that is the simple fact, there is no law on your side, and it will end horribly for you. You submit, you get arrested, you offer NO resistance and then you take action AFTER the fact (sue, try to get them fired, take it to the press, whatever).