Okay everyone, I’ve been poring over the documents in the Ferguson case tonight and I’ve found some very interesting stuff.
Did you know that up until 1976, it was completely legal for police officers in Missouri to use deadly force on fleeing suspects, even if the suspects were unarmed, not violent, or were not suspects in violent crime?
Did you know that moments before Darren Wilson gave his testimony, the jury was given an outdated copy of that Missouri statute, making Wilson’s use of deadly force against Michael Brown appear legal?
Did you know that the prosecutors did not fix their mistake for 2 months, until 17 minutes before the Grand Jury left for final deliberation?
In Grand Jury Volume V pg 5, we see prosector Kathi Alizadeh distributing copies of Missouri statute section 563.046 on September 16, 2014, moments before Darren Wilson takes the stand. The section details restrictions on law enforcement’s force when making arrests. Seems reasonable, yes? One problem.
A former version of 563.046 stated that law enforcement was authorized to use deadly force when a suspect was fleeing, regardless of whether the suspect was unarmed, not violent, or a suspect of a non-violent crime. However, that portion was struck down in 1976 by Mattis v. R Schnarr by the United States Supreme Court Eighth Court of Appeals. After this, the use of lethal force was only justified if the officer had justifiable reason to be afraid for his life or the life of others when apprehending a suspect.
On November 21, 2014, more than 2 months later, Mrs. Alizadeh tells the jury that “some portion” of the statute they were handed was struck down by the Supreme Court and that they should ignore the paper all together (pg135-137). She fails to mention which portion, and shortly afterwards, the jury dismisses for final deliberations.
But what are the implications?
Directly before listening to the testimony of Darren Wilson, the jurors were falsely led to believe that it is legal for a police officer to shoot a suspect simply for attempting to escape or run, regardless of whether or not the suspect is armed, violent, or the suspect of a violent or dangerous crime. The jury listened not only to the testimony of Darren Wilson, but to the testimonies of all other witnesses under the assumption that it was legal in the state of Missouri for Darren Wilson to shoot Michael Brown just for running away. Sometime in between 2:47pm on November 21 when the grand jury reconvened from a recess to 3:04pm on November 21 when grand jury deliberations began, Mrs. Alizadeh told the jury that some part of the copy of 563.043 that was distributed was wrong, outdated, and had since been struck down by the US Supreme Court. She failed to mention which part was struck down, and even dodged questions from the grand juror when asked if the Supreme Court overrides Missouri statutes (the simple answer is YES). Even if the jurors had been told to disregard the copy of 563.043 at exactly 2:47pm (which they were not), and even if they had been told exactly which parts of the copy of 563.043 were unconstitutional (which they were not), the jury would have had an astounding 17 minutes to rethink their entire standpoint on the indictment of Darren Wilson, 17 minutes to sort through evidence they had been absorbing for over 2 months, 17 minutes to decide if the killing of Michael Brown was justified based on an entirely new set of laws.
The entire grand jury was conducted under the assumption that it is legal for cops to shoot suspects just for running away. The prosecution was rigged. Justice was not served. Don’t let them get away with this. The documents have been provided for us to read and use, let’s use them efficiently. Spread the word, search for answers. If anyone has any other evidence or documentation to provide, please add it on. I’m still not quite sure what to do with this information, but we can’t keep it quiet. Please, please, pass it on.