An Analysis of the Findings of the Case of Michael Brown (Deceased) (Case Study Sample)

Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
Michael Brown
Michael Brown, according to the reports given was shot on August 9 2014 in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri. At the time of the unfortunate incident, Brown was eighteen years of age. Surprisingly, the perpetrator of such act went unknown for some time. However, the much that can be told of that person is that he was a police officer named Darren Wilson. It is said that before his death, Michael Brown was walking with his friend on a drive in the streets of Ferguson. The encounter between t Wilson and the victim, Brown, took approximately two minutes. According to a witness, Brown had stolen several packages of cigarillos and thereafter forced himself out of the shop. Owing to his physique, he could not be stopped by the attendants of the said shop.
Darren Wilson, an officer on duty had received information concerning the theft in progress. Upon driving for some time, he saw the two walking and ordered them to take the side walk. He parked his SUV car at an angle so as to block the two from moving further. A witness testified saying that Darren Wilson had ordered for a backup from the police station. Further, the witness testimony suggested that Wilson encountered difficulties in trying to get out of the car.
Further testimony revealed that the two engaged in a fight for some minutes. Opinion evidence before the court suggested that in that struggle by the two, Michael Brown got shot in the wrist flesh. Forensics proved that the presence of soot in the wrist of the victim showed that shooting was at close range. Forensics showed that the existence of DNA of on Wilson’s collar proved that a fight had erupted in the incident.
The actual death of Michael Brown took place after he escaped from the place they had fought and ran 180 feet away from the SUV. The autopsy results gave a confirmation that Wilson did not shoot brown from the back. Other witnesses’ testimony suggesting that Brown was short from the back was discredited. A report from the incidences suggested that Brown appeared to pose a physical threat to Darren Wilson when he moved back to Darren Wilson. Thereafter, Wilson shot Brown and apparently Brown fell on the ground. In his testimony, Wilson told the prosecution that he shot at Brown owing to the fact that he feared for his safety given that Brown had earlier on assaulted him in the SUV. Again, he confirmed that Wilson had tried to reach for something from his waistband. The two incidences made him fear for his safety and therefore he chose to stop Brown by shooting him.
Evidence Adduced
The case attracted a lot witnesses who gave their testimonies on what ensued between Darren Wilson and Michael Brown. Credible evidence is admissible in any court of law CITATION Mag27 \l 1033 (Maguire, MacArthur and Charles). A range of evidence was relied stretching from the eye witnesses’ oral testimonies to the results of forensics. In total 148 witnesses gave their evidence concerning what they saw. Forensic evidence forms part of opinion evidence and can be adduced in a court of law CITATION DeF83 \l 1033 (Forest, Peter and Gaensslen). Forensics formed a central part in deciding Darren Wilson was criminally culpable or not. In essence, DNA tests carried out proved successful in providing reliable information. The blood stains that were collected from the distance covered by the wounded Michael Brown significantly helped to decide the case. The presence of Brown’s DNA in the SUV car bore significance in establishing that a struggle had erupted between the two in the SUV. The muzzle soot found in the deceased’s hands was a clear manifestation that Michael Brown did grab the gun and had an intention of causing harm to Darren Wilson.
Legal Summary
Several federal and state laws appear to have been contravened in this incident. Among the laws worth consideration include the laws governing the use of force by the police in effecting arrest. The law governing the use of deadly force by any law enforcer is provided for in the federal criminal statute. The said law is 18 U.S.C. § 242 and provides that whoever deprives another person any rights, immunities or privileges shall be guilty of a crime. Under section 242, the government in holding the victim criminally culpable must prove three issues: First that the defendant was acting under the color of the law. Secondly, that the victims possessed a right protected under the US Constitution. Thirdly, that the victim acted willfully and lastly, that the dispute resulted in the bodily injury or death. The fact that there was actual bodily injury or death is not subject to contravention. Actually, Brown did in fact die during the process.
Issues that ought to be raised for determination are whether the shootings were objectively unreasonable and whether Wilson did in fact willfully violate Brown’s right as provided for in the constitution.
Whether the Shootings were Objectively Unreasonable
The first issue requires a strict examination of the right against unreasonable seizures as provided for in the Fourth Amendment. It should, however, be noted that the right to be free from unreasonable seizures encompasses the right of an arrestee to be free from objectively unreasonable force. The case of Graham v Connor highlights seems to highlight what necessarily defines unreasonable force. Posing of immediate physical threat to the law enforce shall be one of the factors to held into account in judging that particular case. However, in deciding the same, facts surrounding the same, in particular, as a requirement of the law shall be considered.
Further, the use of deadly force can be justified in given circumstances. More specifically, for the case to suffice there must be a probable cause to make one believe that the suspect is likely to pose a serious threat of physical harm. From the facts of the case, Wilson did shoot Brown from the front. Evidence from several eye witnesses confirmed the same. Forensic evidence presented confirmed also that there was no shooting from the back.
Whether Wilson violated Brown’s Right to be Free from Unreasonable Force
Use of extra force to effect arrest is generally not permissible under law CITATION Sko93 \l 1033 (Skolnick, Jerome and James). Willfulness in the resulting death is a significant aspect to prove in the case herein. The federal law stipulates that the government ought to prove that the arresting officer acted willfully. Screws v United States is a locus classicus under this a...