Well, that didn't take long ...
Attorney: Darren Wilson to retire from Ferguson Police
CNN; kvoa.com -- Nov 27, 2014
(CNN) -- Amid protests and anger over a grand jury's decision against indicting officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of Michael Brown, word comes that Wilson may be retiring from the Ferguson Police force.
"There are discussions that are going forward with the department to separate from the department in an amicable fashion. We're talking about it. realistically Don, he can't go become to being a police officer, he knows that. There is no illusion about an of this, the way in which he leaves. That is really important to him on a lot of different levels, but, it's not a question of if, it's a question of when," said Bruntrager [Wilson's attorneys].
Wilson reportedly decided against resigning before the grand jury's decision. He felt that resigning while they were still hearing evidence would seem that he was admitting guilt.
[...]
Now, he wouldn't want to admit THAT, now would he?
Hmmm? That "concern for appearances" doesn't bode well for the veracity of his testimony, does it? What else did Officer Wilson do to maintain his "official version" of those deadly events.
And No, this is not from "The Onion" ...
Darren Wilson: I want to teach ‘use of force’
by Danika Fears, nypost.com -- Nov 26, 2014
[...]
“Do you really think it’s possible?” he [Wilson] asked. “I mean, do you think they would accept me? Do you think it would be safe for me? Those are all questions, not only for me, but for the other officers. Is the attention brought to me going to hurt one of them? Can I put them in that situation?”
A final decision regarding his career as a cop hasn’t been made yet, but Wilson said he wants to “teach people” in the future.
“I would love to give more insight on … into the use of force and anything I can,” he said. “Anything that I can get out of this career I’ve had so far and of the incident, I would love to give to someone else.”
Before he dare attempt to "teach" this concept, perhaps Officer Wilson had better actually read about the
many graduated tiers to the Use of Force:
The Use-of-Force Continuum -- National Institute of Justice
• Officer Presence — No force is used. Considered the best way to resolve a situation.
• Verbalization — Force is not-physical.
• Empty-Hand Control — Officers use bodily force to gain control of a situation.
• Less-Lethal Methods — Officers use less-lethal technologies to gain control of a situation.
• Lethal Force — Officers use lethal weapons to gain control of a situation. Should only be used if a suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or another individual.
Officers are supposed to attempt
each of the lessor steps BEFORE proceeding to the last one.
And Mr. Wilson might want to learn about the over-riding goal of REAL Officers to the Law to apply the De-escalation of Force concept, at every opportunity:
Deciding When and How to Use Less-Lethal Devices -- National Institute of Justice
When deciding to use less-lethal equipment, officers consider the circumstances and their agency's policy. Almost all larger law enforcement agencies have written policies about the use of less-lethal force.
As part of their policy, agencies often have an approved use-of-force continuum to help officers decide the suitable amount of force for a situation — higher levels of force in most severe circumstances, and less force in other circumstances.
Many agencies in which officers use less-lethal technologies have training programs to help evaluate dangerous circumstances.
Then if Officer Wilson really wants to 'make amends' by teaching,
he should learn the actual language of the Law that authorizes the use of such Lethal force, in particular ...
[...] the Supreme Court in 1985 under Tennessee v. Garner included the following:
“where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.”
So the difference, which the St. Louis County DA's Office failed to explain, is that the law changed from allowing officers to use deadly force when they "reasonably believe" a person could be dangerous to him -- or herself or to others to requiring that they have "probable cause" for such a belief.
Between the two, "reasonable belief [or suspicion]" is the lesser and far easier to reach standard. As O'Donnell explained, the prior standard allowed police officers to shoot and kill fleeing suspects even when the crime they were suspected of committing was far less than a capital offense. In one case brought up by O'Donnell, a person who simply spat on an officer was shot and killed simply because he turned and ran away afterward.
[...]
--
Darren Wilson's freedom was ensured by fatal errors made by the St. Louis D.A. and police department -- Frank Vyan Walton -- Nov 27, 2014
Here's a hint for would-be "Teacher Wilson" -- having your "feeling hurts" does not rise to the STANDARD of "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm" --
THAT standard takes an actual threat, from an actual weapon, from a suspect who has RESISTED all reasonable attempts by the arresting officer, at:
• Officer Presence
• Verbalization
• Empty-Hand Control
• Less-Lethal Methods
to take control of a "confrontation" situation -- NON-Lethally.
Defending "one's manhood" [pg 7] does not constitute the necessary "probable cause" to fire your weapon LETHALLY shot, after shot, after shot, after DEADLY shot.
That standard requires a Present and Lethal danger to yourself or others. 'Harsh or insulting words' DO NOT meet that standard; "Fighting words" DO NOT authorize you to Kill, under the Law.
Your own "rage and fear" do not constitute probable cause of your fleeing suspect being Armed with Deadly Force. NO -- an actual weapon PRESENTLY in the hands of your suspect -- about to be used -- is what authorizes you to respond IN KIND, as an Officer of the Law.
Of course if Officer Wilson knew these Use of Force concepts, he would not have to retire from the Police Force now, because Michael Brown would still be alive.