Michael Brown's family should apologize to Darren Wilson, not sue him

[Estil]

So I just recently found out (because I was curious as to how Officer Darren Wilson was holding up) that Michael Brown's family has the audacity and nerve to file a wrongful death suit against Darren Wilson. I guess they missed the memo about Darren being found innocent. Officer Wilson and his family have been through more than enough without the Brown family and their activists continuing to treat Wilson like a rotten racist while their golden boy Michael Brown continues to be treated like some sort of martyr.

To the Brown family I'll simply say this, you owe Darren Wilson an apology, not a lawsuit. On that note I wonder how many of the professors/facuilty/staff at Duke who signed that letter smearing the Duke lacross players without bothering to find out what really happened bothered to apologize for ruining their lives, just as Michael Brown's family and their activists continue to insist on ruining Darren Wilson and his family.

Officer Wilson was innocent and did the only thing he could do at the time. He does not deserve to be treated this way.

[jackfaire]

Officer Wilson was innocent and did the only thing he could do at the time. He does not deserve to be treated this way.

By that logic the lawsuit against OJ Simpson was wrong and illegal.

Here's the thing being proven innocent in a court of law doesn't always mean a person is actually innocent just like not every guilty person is guilty.

For most people it's based on convincing people for one way or the other.

For cops it's about how close the prosecutor is to retirement. The magic method that sees cops always innocent even if that seems like a ludicrous verdict (I am not saying it is in this case but there have been plenty of cases where the cop was dead to rights wrong and they still got off)

The prosecutor who is brought in to try the cop is ALWAYS the same prosecutor that has to work with every other cop after the trial. Thus the cop usually is declared innocent and everyone looks the other way. If a prosecutor gets a conviction for a cop he might as well quit his jobs. Cops will stop working with him misfiling paperwork, screwing up letting criminals go anything to screw with the prosecuter.

In a climate like this the message is clear "you make sure he walks" period. Even if he's guilty as sin so no they shouldn't have to apologize for anything.

They take the next step like Ron and Nicole's families did. A civil suit is effectively the same case retried. Same evidence same everything. If he is truly innocent the case will go the same way and then I can see them moving on with their lives but apologizing that's laughable. It doesn't matter how justified a killing is you don't just go "well person I loved had it coming so it's okay" Not quite how emotions work.

And the argument has never been whether he killed him only if it's justified. A civil case won't mean cops, it won't mean criminal prosecutors it means people whose careers won't be destroyed by doing their jobs right.

And that's what it comes down to sometimes a Civil Trial is the only way to get any sort of Justice. If he's found innocent in that environment of any wrong doing then they will know that.

If he's guilty they will get justice.

You can't just hand wave away killing someone because it's their job. Killing as a cop is supposed to be the last resort not the first response.

If it's the former for him then he would bear the family no ill will. If it's the second he has no place being a cop. I spent time in the Army and one thing you're very aware of is they aren't training you to kill some video game character you're killing someone's son, father, brother. There is no reason that family should ever forgive you for that.

Thinking otherwise means feeling that Officer Wilson is some how more deserving of more rights than you or I and that we should just kiss his boots and be glad he didn't decide shooting us was all he could do.

If you don't like that his innocence isn't being believed then help change legislation so that prosecutors from unrelated districts are brought in on these cases so that no appearance of bias exists and thus no doubt of his innocence.

[Gravekeeper]

What jack said. He wasn't found "innocent" in a court of law. They declined to indict him in the first place. In light of that I find telling the family that lost a child to apologize to the person that killed him to be tonedeaf to be it mildly.

[mjr]

What jack said. He wasn't found "innocent" in a court of law. They declined to indict him in the first place. In light of that I find telling the family that lost a child to apologize to the person that killed him to be tonedeaf to be it mildly.

Well, in a court of law, there really isn't "innocent". There's merely "not guilty".

And the grand jury made the decision to acquit because they believed there wasn't enough evidence to move forward with a trial. Whether there was or wasn't, that's the decision they made. That's how a grand jury works.

[s_stabeler]

It really hinges on if you believe the DOJ investigation was accurate or not ( and frankly, I am suspicious of it- it ruled that none of the witnesses against Wilson were credible- frankly, it looks suspicious. I would expect a complete dismissal like that in a whitewash, not a true investigation of the matter) since if you believe the DOJ investigation, they ruled the evidence showed it was self-defense. If they are right, then the civil suit is unreasonable, since suing someone protecting themselves is not really fair. If, however, you don't believe the DOJ investigation was a true investigation ( as opposed to a whitewash) It is reasonable to sue, since you have a legitimate belief Wilson was responsible for wrongfulyl likking Brown.

[jackfaire]

And the grand jury made the decision to acquit because they believed there wasn't enough evidence to move forward with a trial. Whether there was or wasn't, that's the decision they made. That's how a grand jury works.

And that's how it works in almost every case even if there is enough evidence for Helen Keller to convict. Again the Grand Juries are run by the very same people that have to continue working with the police. And honestly even if the person's decision to shoot came down to prejudice it's not a race thing that Grand Juries work this way.

Their are no laws saying that every piece of evidence has to be admitted. In fact if the Proscecuter knows evidence exists and doesn't argue for it's inclusion they can hand victory to the defense and in these cases that happens a lot.

That's part of why people are getting angry. Movies and TV shows love to show us Internal Affairs. The cops who police the police. Except you notice they always get presented as corrupt themselves or going on "witch hunts'

Basically our society wants us to know that cops are above the law.

I have personally witnessed Police badger someone into giving them an excuse. Kid just wanted to board the train. Security guard recognized him as a boy who was on parole. He decided to have some fun. He continually harasses the boy and forbid him from boarding the train, in that area there no buses and no nearby train stations.

It was so bad that everyone else on the platform tried to get the security guard to leave him alone. The security guard apparently was a retired cop because he called a patrol car to the site that he was very friendly with as they started joking and laughing. Before the cops had arrived though everyone else left on the train because they had lives, families and such and "meh we did what we could"

I stayed. I planned on telling the police that if they were going to arrest anyone it was the security guard for harassment. They tracked down the kid who was waiting just off the property so he could run for the train just so that he could get home since there was no way to get home from where we were for any of us without the train.

Angry, young and frustrated he refused to comply to a law that violates the 5th Amendment of the United States of the Constitution. He didn't identify himself.

(It violates the Amendment because if they know the name of the crook they are looking for but not his appearance then you're incriminating yourself by identifying yourself to the police think Unusual Suspects)

This violates his parole he undoubtedly lost his job, sent back to jail etc. All because some ex-cop decided "He shouldn't be out jail yet"

And that was the happy ending compared to cops killing people. The cops took my statement and my information, but gave me no badge numbers, trial date, or any information that would have let me speak on the kids behalf.

Grand Juries sound great and fancy but it's a room full of the same people that work with that cop everyday. The cops he serves with the prosecution that relies on evidence gathered by the police to make cases and the Judge who has to listen to police testimony.

The question being asked in that room is absolutely not "Do we have enough evidence to go to trial" the question being asked is "Do any of us want to commit career suicide by taking this to trial"

If the judge was your brother, if the lawyer was your dad if any of them had a personal connection to you whatsoever they have to by law recuse themselves from the case

Hell my mom's bankruptcy attorney had to pass the case to his partner because my mom started using a realtor that happened to be his mom to consider selling her house that the bankruptcy was trying to save.

And yet the law allows these people to sit of judgement of people they work with, socialize with and maybe even play poker with. There is no impartiality in that room and it's wrong.

And really not just for the victims but for the cops too. Because a lot of people are aware of what jokes these Grand Juries are.

Everyone knows how a civil case became the only way that Ron and Nicole's families got justice.

You want apologies and people to lay off of Officer Darren Wilson? Then you better hope this civil case goes forward or his life will be hell.

If he's proven innocent in a civil trial then people will accept that "okay he really is" but if there is no trial the people will assume "He got away with murder" and he will suffer the same level of harassment that every other officer has that never sees trial.

The only way to change the system is to pass laws forcing a change of venue away from the district in which the cop works when a cop has to appear before a Grand Jury only then will people even start to trust a Not Guilty verdict.

[Gravekeeper]

And the grand jury made the decision to acquit because they believed there wasn't enough evidence to move forward with a trial. Whether there was or wasn't, that's the decision they made. That's how a grand jury works.

Well, the problem is whether or not to indict, especially in the case of an officer, is pretty much the decision of the prosecutor. Hence the old "ham sandwich" line and the entire problem with the system investigating itself. An independent special prosecutor should have been appointed.

Instead, we got a lot of questionable fuckery from a prosecutor who has an entire career full of protecting officers under investigation.

[Estil]

I knew someone was gonna play the OJ card...

OJ was known to have a history of domestic abuse against his wife. He was a thug. Officer Wilson was a regular cop like any other going about his normal duties until that fateful day happened. He is nothing like OJ. OJ got off on that silly "glove doesn't fit" scheme (wasn't OJ told to not take some drugs so his hands would get all swelled up so the gloves wouldn't fit?).

Anyone with a lick of common sense knew OJ did it. Officer Wilson did the only thing he could do...what else can you do when someone is reaching for your gun (knowing he will kill you with it if given half a chance), especially in that tightly enclosed vehicle? When all this first happened I reserved judgement one way or the other (remembering the Duke Lacross thing mind you)...what made me give Wilson the benefit of the doubt was when the autopsys came out, and even the Brown family's own autopsy admitted Brown was not shot in the back as many Brown activists insisted.

I hope Officer Wilson is even further vindicated in this civil trial to remind people just how stupid the more extreme Brown activists were in rioting and looting Ferguson (which only hurt even more innocent people) when they didn't even bother to wait and be sure about what really happened. They just ASSumed any time a white cop shoots a black guy, it can only happen because that cop is nothing but a rotten to the core racist :P

[Estil]

Well, in a court of law, there really isn't "innocent". There's merely "not guilty".

And the grand jury made the decision to acquit because they believed there wasn't enough evidence to move forward with a trial. Whether there was or wasn't, that's the decision they made. That's how a grand jury works.

Not to mention a grand jury doesn't need anywhere close to a unanimous verdict (isn't what, 2/3 or 3/4 enough?) and they only need probable cause (the fourth level of burden of proof, the others in ascending order are preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence (which is the standard for civil suits I think? Good luck with that!), and of course beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal cases).

And of course unlike during the OJ trial (I can't believe some of you are telling me with a straight face this is a valid comparison) we now have the benefit of the Internet and such, and the papers from the grand jury hearings were released to the public so right from the very start people could see for themselves how this was all going down.

How would you guys like it if one day you were unjustly smeared a racist and ended up having your career or your life ruined? While the guy who you had no choice to shoot is treated like some martyred angel?

And right from the very start the Brown family and their activists didn't give a flying Fig Newton about "justice"...they didn't care about whether Officer Wilson was really guilty of police brutality and/or racism. They already made up their mind from the very start Officer Wilson must be a rotten to the core racist, and I have no doubt they will continue to insist as such even if the civil trial is totally open and shut in Officer Wilson's favor.

[Estil]

What jack said. He wasn't found "innocent" in a court of law. They declined to indict him in the first place. In light of that I find telling the family that lost a child to apologize to the person that killed him to be tonedeaf to be it mildly.

He was not a child, he was a grown legal age man, and that man chose to not only resist arrest (to put it politely) but did the most STUPID thing one could do to an officer (even more stupid then actually aiming a gun at him/her), reaching for the officer's gun!!

[TheHuckster]

Anyone with a lick of common sense knew OJ did it. Officer Wilson did the only thing he could do...what else can you do when someone is reaching for your gun (knowing he will kill you with it if given half a chance), especially in that tightly enclosed vehicle? When all this first happened I reserved judgement one way or the other (remembering the Duke Lacross thing mind you)...what made me give Wilson the benefit of the doubt was when the autopsys came out, and even the Brown family's own autopsy admitted Brown was not shot in the back as many Brown activists insisted.

Except that isn't what happened. Yes, there was an altercation in the car, and yes Brown was struggling with the officer. Had Brown been killed during this altercation, whether intentionally or accidentally, there'd be no question the officer was justified in his actions.

Instead what happened was after this altercation happened, Brown fled, and then turned around.

Now, yes, there are conflicting accounts as to what happened next. Some say Brown had his hands up to surrender, and others say he was approaching Wilson threateningly. I cannot say what actually happened, and given the conflicting reports, I don't think anyone can say for certain. The DOJ decided the accounts saying he did not have his hands up were more credible than the other accounts, and I can understand why people find that decision dubious, given the DOJ's conflict of interest in the case.

But, just like with cases like OJ Simpson, the family of an acquitted murder suspect can still sue. And, no, it's absurd to expect an apology from them. We don't know for sure if Wilson is truly innocent of these charges. I agree that Brown was no innocent person, and he certainly was a criminal, at least a misdemeanor violator. That doesn't automatically mean this shooting was at all justified.

[Gravekeeper]

He was not a child, he was a grown legal age man, and that man chose to not only resist arrest (to put it politely) but did the most STUPID thing one could do to an officer (even more stupid then actually aiming a gun at him/her), reaching for the officer's gun!!

It was a figure of speech, he was 18, had literally just graduated high school a week before he was shot and he was not shot while reaching for the officer's gun.

[jackfaire]

And of course unlike during the OJ trial (I can't believe some of you are telling me with a straight face this is a valid comparison)...

How would you guys like it if one day you were unjustly smeared a racist and ended up having your career or your life ruined? While the guy who you had no choice to shoot is treated like some martyred angel?

Quick question what comparison do you think I was making? I for the life me can't contemplate a comparison that would be valid other than the one I made. For clarity sake I will break it down so you know what the comparison is.

1) Officer Darren Wilson's Grand Jury was made up his coworkers and friends. People whom if he goes to trial and found innocent will have to work with him.

2) If Darren Wilson goes to trial and is found innocent then the Prosecutor will be forced out of his job.

3) If Darren Wilson goes to trial and is found innocent then the Judge that is on the bench at the Grand Jury will be removed from such as people destroy his reputation for doing his job.

4) If Darren Wilson goes to trial and is found guilty then the judge and prosecutor will be forced out of their jobs and have death threats made against them.

This gives Darren Wilson an edge as it becomes in their best interests to just not send him to trial since it's the only option that isn't career suicide.

Do you see the comparison I made yet? If not here it is.

OJ Simpson is Rich, Famous, Well known and beloved. He had an edge. The chances of OJ getting convicted on what wasn't concrete evidence was highly unlikely and by concrete I mean someone had video evidence of him doing it.

He had wait for it....an edge. The actions they took aren't the comparison. The only comparison is that everyone knew each of those men walking into their respective court rooms was never ever getting a trial/guilty verdict ever.

Because of how unlikely it is that a Grand Jury will EVER send a cop to trial even a white racist is going to look at that and think "ha ha he got away with murder"

The instant that Grand Jury happened Darren Wilson's reputation was "Dirty Cop"

Some cheering him for being one and some condemning him for it.

Here is why a civil trial could clear his name.

1) In a Grand Jury the Prosecutor only has to present every piece of evidence he wants if he has to win. It has been found for a fact that Prosecutors will withhold evidence that they don't wish to present at the hearing, trial etc. If it is not submitted at the Grand Jury it doesn't exist and thus when releasing the evidence presented at the Grand Jury to the public the savvy public knows that might not be everything.

2) In a Civil trial the lawyer for the Plaintiff has most likely never met nor worked with Darren Wilson now or will in the future which means that his career isn't dependent on working with the police as they are a civil lawyer. This means people know that lawyer will present all evidence not just that which the Grand Jury prosecutor decided was fit. The public knows this lawyer will use EVERYTHING. So if the only things this lawyer uses are those things already seen in the Grand Jury then they will now know for a fact that it was in fact everything they had on the case.

3) If cleared by a civil trial most people who currently doubt his innocence not because white/black but because cops get away with killing people all of the time when there was another way (white people are on that list too) will stop doubting his innocence and chalk it up to an unfortunate incident.

The White Racists will still be happy a black kid died and everyone else will move on with their lives.

I am not sure why you would be against this honestly? Do you think that the family who loved and cared for this kid whose a real person and not a 2 dimensional character from some police procedural should be grateful to Darren Wilson for killing him? I know the family clearly very much cares about justice.

Not revenge not the destruction of one man. Or they wouldn't be looking to have his actions proven wrong in a court of law because if his actions are proven right they don't get to say he ruthlessly killed their kid.

If they never brought a civil suit though. Man why they wouldn't even have to do anything Darren Wilson would be damaged goods and just like George Zimmerman and OJ Simpson people would figure "Obviously he's guilty as sin but no way his buddies are going to convict him"

You should embrace a civil trial so that Darren Wilson doesn't become the next person that we refer to as "escaped justice"

[s_stabeler]

there's also a more basic reason why they shouldn't be harshly criticised. They are grieving for their dead son. Even if they are being unreasonable, a reasonable person would chalk it up to their grief, and not insist on an apology which could easily be taken as a deliberate humiliation inflicted on them ("That guy killed my son, and when I demanded justice for it, I was made to apologise?!?")

[Rusty Shackleford]

there's also a more basic reason why they shouldn't be harshly criticised. They are grieving for their dead son. Even if they are being unreasonable, a reasonable person would chalk it up to their grief, and not insist on an apology which could easily be taken as a deliberate humiliation inflicted on them ("That guy killed my son, and when I demanded justice for it, I was made to apologise?!?")

Why did your son rob a convenience store, wrestle with a cop, attempt to take his weapon, then advance toward the cop? Also, why did you not call for your neighbors and friends to stand down from destroying your neighborhood instead of fanning the flames of racist hatred just because the cop was white?