Footnotes:

said they would supply such footage to the team that night but did not. Repeated efforts were made to ascertain whether such a recording ever existed or could be provided. The clerk never produced such a recording. They then moved from their prior residence, stopped returning calls from the team, and their telephone number previously provided was taken out of service. In order to explore whether the clerk’s claim that a gun fell from Mr. Johnson’s waist band when he was placed on the EMS stretcher was accurate, several EMS staff were located. The team’s interviews with EMS and other personnel directly conflict with the clerk’s claim. Some EMS personnel said that the gun was found under Mr. Johnson when they rolled him over to better administer aid.

Under Missouri law, when reviewing charges and an individual’s claim of self-defense or defense of others, prosecutors are ethically required to consider those defenses in their decision making.

Consideration of charges. The crimes of Murder 1st Degree, Murder 2nd Degree, Voluntary Manslaughter and Involuntary Manslaughter 1st Degree were reviewed. No other charges were applicable for review. Missouri does not have applicable laws associated with depriving an individual of their Civil Rights to consider.

Analysis of Self-Defense and Defense of Others. The officers involved in the incident claim that their actions were necessary to defend themselves or other officers from Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson’s shooting of one police officer, or the belief that he had done so, could corroborate the claim of self- defense or defense of others by the involved officers. To justify charging an officer claiming such defenses with the shooting of Mr. Johnson, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer did not act in lawful self-defense or defense of others. The physical evidence is clear that one officer was shot with a bullet that could not have been fired from a police officer’s gun, but it could have been fired from Mr. Johnson’s gun. This evidence is consistent with Mr. Johnson having a firearm and using that gun to shoot one police officer. The physical evidence does not corroborate a theory that one officer mistakenly shot the second officer. The state could not overcome the self-defense or defense of others claims.

The physical evidence, the audio evidence and the statements of evidence do not support filing charges against the officers involved with the arrest or the fatal shooting of Malcolm Johnson. Given the review of all the evidence, there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer who shot Malcolm Johnson was not acting in lawful self-defense or defense of others under Missouri law. Further, there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that officers involved in the arrest of Malcolm Johnson acted unlawfully under Missouri law. The recommendation is that no charges be filed.

1 All parties’ states of mind are relevant factors in assessing any shooting incident. This uncharged incident is relevant here only to the extent that it may supply evidence as to Mr. Johnson’s state of mind. Mr. Johnson was a suspect in a March 15, 2021 shooting incident involving an ex-girlfriend, her brother, her mother and her father. Multiple witnesses named him as the suspected shooter. Mr. Johnson was aware that he was wanted by law enforcement in connection to this situation. The Dodge Journey driven by Mr. Johnson was flagged for law enforcement as well. According to recorded statements by witnesses to that previous shooting, Mr. Johnson allegedly said he intended to kill his ex-girlfriend and then himself.

Editor’s note: The cellphone video clearly shows Johnson at the counter scratching of a lottery ticket when two Police officers enter the gas station.