The grand jury’s refusal to indict the white Missouri police officer who shot and killed black teenager Michael Brown demands preliminary acceptance as the considered judgment of a citizens’ panel.
At the same time, the rationale behind the grand jury’s decision to withhold criminal charges against Officer Darren Wilson also demands explanation. The prosecutor made the right call in releasing much of the evidence Monday night.
While grand jury investigations are typically kept secret, the Ferguson shooting has been anything but a typical case. To many, Brown’s death last August stands as an enough-is-enough confirmation of the wrongful use of lethal force against young black men by white cops.
Accounts that Wilson shot Brown while Brown had his hands raised fueled anger. Local authorities, including Missouri’s governor, intensified the fury by responding to protests with overbearing force.
Their credibility in doubt, Gov. Jay Nixon and St. Louis County prosecutor Robert McCulloch could not expect Brown’s family or members of the general public to simply accept that the rule of law has come into play.
Matching the facts of a police shooting against statutes that empower officers to use deadly force involves the resolution of tough questions. The maxim that cops can open fire when they reasonably believe their lives are in danger can be tough to apply under fast-moving circumstances.
Here, evidence indicated that Brown struggled with Wilson at the door of Wilson’s car, leading Wilson to fire and wound Brown’s hand. Very quickly, Brown moved away from the car, Wilson followed and the unarmed Brown is said to have turned to face the cop.
McCulloch said that witness statements varied greatly about Brown’s movements in this second confrontation, with some saying that Brown charged at Wilson. Wilson opened fire again, fatally wounding Brown. The crucial question was whether Wilson had reason to fear for his life. If not, he would be open to trial on charges ranging from criminally negligent homicide (meaning that he carelessly took Brown’s life) to murder (meaning that he shot Brown in cold blood).
Wilson told his story to the grand jury. To determine whether he spoke truth or acted out of well-founded fear, the grand jury necessarily relied on witness testimony and an analysis of the autopsy.
As described by McCulloch, it was in the interplay between statements and science that grand jurors found they lacked probable cause to believe that Wilson had committed a crime, let alone to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.
To many outside the jury room, the conclusion defies common sense, because it requires believing that Brown ran menacingly back toward Wilson after Wilson had begun shooting. Worse, for some it affirms that the criminal justice system is stacked against African-Americans.
Placing all the evidence on the public record is the only hope Missouri authorities have of demonstrating that the right judgment was reached.
