How Michael Brown Might Have Been Arrested Without the Use of Deadly Force
There were no surprises to come out of Ferguson, Mo., last week. Neither the grand jury’s decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown, nor the riot that decision engendered was unexpected by anyone with even a modest familiarity with the matter. And just as predictable has been the left’s attempt to undermine the former and thereby justify the latter. They are to be excused in their rioting, we are told, for the grand jury’s decision is illegitimate.
To cite but one example of this, we turn to the New Yorker, where people of a leftist persuasion turn for guidance on how to think about current events. In a Nov. 25 post at the magazine’s website, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin criticizes St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch for what Toobin sees as a failure to follow the “customary rules” of his profession. “If McCulloch’s lawyers had simply pared down the evidence to that which incriminated Wilson,” Toobin writes, “they would have easily obtained an indictment.”
Perhaps so, but an indictment in the case would have led to a trial that McCulloch knew, as Toobin himself should know, would result in Darren Wilson’s acquittal. Reasonable doubt was everywhere in the case, and prosecutors are ethically bound to proceed to trial only if they are confident of their ability to convince twelve jurors that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It wasn’t going to happen.
So, unless the Justice Department brings civil rights charges against Darren Wilson – still a possibility despite little chance of success – he will not face the public criminal trial that Jeffrey Toobin and so many others wished to see. And even a civil trial arising from a wrongful death claim against Wilson and the city of Ferguson is far from a certainty. Yes, there will be a lawsuit, of course, but it will likely be resolved through a settlement rather than a trial. If a trial were to take place, both sides would have much to lose. If a jury finds for the plaintiffs, the city faces the possibility of a multimillion-dollar judgment, and even if it prevailed, the city might face further rioting and disruptive protests. But lawyers representing Michael Brown’s family have risks to weigh as well. In a civil trial, Brown’s juvenile record would almost certainly be introduced. If it revealed serious violations of the law, a jury might be less sympathetic to his family request for damages. And is there anyone who believes he has no juvenile record?
But even as Michael Brown’s death recedes from the front pages, there are still aspects of the case that require examination, not least of which are the tactics employed by Darren Wilson in the moments leading up to the shooting. Though I’m in agreement with the grand jury’s decision in declining to charge Wilson in Brown’s death, it doesn’t mean I agree the shooting was unavoidable. If we imagine a counterfactual scenario and back up, step by step, from the moment the first shot was fired, we can come up with a way in which Michael Brown might have been arrested without the use of deadly force. This is not intended as a criticism of Darren Wilson, but rather as a reminder to police officers who may someday find themselves in a similar situation.
Among my first thoughts on hearing of the Michael Brown shooting was to wonder if the officer was working alone. An article in Police magazine points out that of 536 police officers killed from 2000 to 2009, only about a third were working alone, suggesting that it’s somehow safer to work without a partner. I’m certain that a deeper exploration beyond the raw numbers would show this to be untrue, but let’s examine the issue as it relates to the Darren Wilson-Michael Brown confrontation.