Posted on 07/18/2016 11:51:42 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
While police officers are getting murdered in Dallas and Baton Rouge, while others are under assault in Missouri, Georgia and Tennessee, while supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement attempt to justify the murders of police officers, the Democratic National Convention, AKA Hillary’s Coronation, will feature the mothers of black men who died in confrontations with police, thereby perpetuating the myth that there is systemic racism in police departments across the nation.
One mother who will speak will be Lezley McSpadden, the mother of Michael Brown, the “Gentle Giant” who burgled a convenience store, then attempted to grab the gun of officer Darren Wilson before Wilson shot and killed him. Barack Obama then referred to Brown’s death as “Walking while black,” as Ben Shapiro noted in a video explaining the incident. Brown’s death catalyzed the Black Lives Matter Movement that has engendered calls for murdering police officers.
Other mothers the DNC will feature include Sybrina Fulton, the mother of Trayvon Martin, who was shot by George Zimmerman after Martin repeatedly slammed Zimmerman’s head on the pavement, and Gwen Carr, the mother of Eric Garner, who was massively overweight and died when police administered a hold when he resisted arrest, and Geneva Reed-Veal, the mother of Sandra Bland, whose death was viewed by Black Lives Matter members as a murder that was covered up, although that, too has been debunked.
Hillary Clinton’s polling in the black community vis-à-vis Donald Trump is nearly as dominant as Barack Obama’s was against Mitt Romney in 2012; according to last week’s NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll, Clinton got 88% of the black vote in Ohio, Trump gather exactly 0%; in Pennsylvania, Clinton got 91% of the black vote; Trump again got 0%.
Hillary’s Coronation, will feature the mothers of black men who died in confrontations with police, thereby perpetuating the myth that there is systemic racism in police departments across the nation.
But the Democratic Party is taking no chances; by appealing to the Black Lives Matter movement, they expect to gin up their support in the black community, even if doing so means that they must implicitly target the police to do so.
No, they won't. Most leftists are thoroughly conditioned to believe the leftist narrative. I can guarantee that the majority of strong Democrat supporters believe the narrative that those thugs were innocent black men minding their own business when some racist cop, Hispanic guy, what-have-you, decided to use them as target practice.
This is the narrative that we have to defeat, by pounding over and over that these thugs were thugs, behaving like... thugs. Decent black men, as a rule, are not sought out for target practice (and if that were to happen, the outrage would be deafening).
The rats have to keep blacks agitated, so they will show up and vote.
You’d swear she’s trying to throw the election
So they really do want to go THAT anti-police/law and order....guess they figure it’s a winning strategy with their radical extremist crowd. Shame.
Hillary Clinton - The Rape and Murder Candidate. With a motto of, “Why stop at a few when?”
Hillary’s internal polls with blacks must be showing a lot of support shifting toward Trump. I can’t believe she would be willing to risk alienating so much of the white vote unless she desperately needed to shore up the black vote, which the left has taken for granted for decades.
Hillary invites the mothers of dead thugs, Trump invites the families of heroes she helped kill. Perfect!
My brother brought up six months ago a conversation he’d had with the security guys for his IT company. These were five or six former Army guys....in their 50’s....all stanch democrats.
He asked how they would field the situation in 2016, and all of them noted that they just weren’t happy with Hillary. At least three said with some enthusiasm that they were going to cross the line and vote Trump. It wasn’t some bogus talk or just pulling his leg....they were just fed up with all the promises and nothing ever delivered.
It won’t be that way across the board, but if you have just one-third of the normal black democratic voters who either vote Trump or stay home....then she can’t win or even get close to 45-percent of the vote.
Absolutely true. Truth is secondary, the narratives are accepted as articles of faith, and the press reinforces the leftist mind set. If so many people, and 100% of the press believe it, it must be the truth.
-- This is the narrative that we have to defeat, by pounding over and over that these thugs were thugs, behaving like... thugs. --
I totally agree that the narrative has to be rejected, openly and often. But the result of that is just going to be polarization. The press will never adopt honesty.
That was what I’m thinking. She’s going after the minority and disregarding the majority. Seems like a losing strategy.
Hillary is a bottom feeder.
The sweet part is that there's no part of any of this that Trump had his finger in so while we can directly tie Hillary to much, they have to do the "what ifs/could happen" deal to try to attack Trump.
[01] The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not support the conclusion that Wilson’s uses of deadly force were “objectively unreasonable” under the Supreme Court’s definition. (Page 5)
[02] when the store clerk tried to stop Brown, Brown used his physical size to stand over him and forcefully shove him away. (Page 6)
[03] Wilson was aware of the theft and had a description of the suspects as he encountered Brown and Witness 101. (Page 6)
[04] Autopsy results and bullet trajectory, skin from Brown’s palm on the outside of the SUV door as well as Brown’s DNA on the inside of the driver’s door corroborate Wilson’s account that during the struggle, Brown used his right hand to grab and attempt to control Wilson’s gun. (Page 6)
[05] there is no credible evidence to disprove Wilson’s account of what occurred inside the SUV. (Page 7)
[06] autopsy results confirm that Wilson did not shoot Brown in the back as he was running away because there were no entrance wounds to Brown’s back. (Page 7)
[07] witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts (Page 8)
[08] several witnesses stated that Brown appeared to pose a physical threat to Wilson as he moved toward Wilson. (Page 8)
[09] The physical evidence also establishes that Brown moved forward toward Wilson after he turned around to face him. The physical evidence is corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses. (Page 10)
[10] evidence does not establish that it was unreasonable for Wilson to perceive Brown as a threat while Brown was punching and grabbing him in the SUV and attempting to take his gun. (Page 11)
[11] Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses (Page 12)
[12] Wilson’s account was consistent with those results, and consistent with the accounts of other independent eyewitnesses, whose accounts were also consistent with the physical evidence. Wilson’s statements were consistent with each other in all material ways, and would not be subject to effective impeachment for inconsistencies or deviation from the physical evidence.8 Therefore, in analyzing all of the evidence, federal prosecutors found Wilson’s account to be credible. (Page 16)
[13] Witness accounts suggesting that Brown was standing still with his hands raised in an unambiguous signal of surrender when Wilson shot Brown are inconsistent with the physical evidence, are otherwise not credible because of internal inconsistencies, or are not credible because of inconsistencies with other credible evidence. (Page 78)
[14] Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson’s account and are consistent with the physical evidence. (Page 78)
[15] several of these witnesses stated that they would have felt threatened by Brown and would have responded in the same way Wilson did. (Page 82)
[16] there are no witnesses who could testify credibly that Wilson shot Brown while Brown was clearly attempting to surrender. (Page 83)
[17] There is no witness who has stated that Brown had his hands up in surrender whose statement is otherwise consistent with the physical evidence. (Page 83)
[18] The media has widely reported that there is witness testimony that Brown said “don’t shoot” as he held his hands above his head. In fact, our investigation did not reveal any eyewitness who stated that Brown said “don’t shoot.” (Page 83)
[19] Wilson did not know that Brown was not armed at the time he shot him, and had reason to suspect that he might be when Brown reached into the waistband of his pants as he advanced toward Wilson. (Page 84)
[20] Wilson did not have time to determine whether Brown had a gun and was not required to risk being shot himself in order to make a more definitive assessment.
[21] In addition, even assuming that Wilson definitively knew that Brown was not armed, Wilson was aware that Brown had already assaulted him once and attempted to gain control of his gun. (Page 85)
[22] Wilson has a strong argument that he was justified in firing his weapon at Brown as he continued to advance toward him and refuse commands to stop, and the law does not require Wilson to wait until Brown was close enough to physically assault Wilson. (Page 85)
[23] we must avoid substituting our personal notions of proper police procedure for the instantaneous decision of the officer at the scene. We must never allow the theoretical, sanitized world of our imagination to replace the dangerous and complex world that policemen face every day.” (Page 85)
[24] “It may appear, in the calm aftermath, that an officer could have taken a different course, but we do not hold the police to such a demanding standard.” (citing Gardner v. Buerger, 82 F.3d 248, 251 (8th Cir. 1996) (same))). Rather, where, as here, an officer points his gun at a suspect to halt his advance, that suspect should be on notice that “escalation of the situation would result in the use of the firearm.” Estate of Morgan at 498. An officer is permitted to continue firing until the threat is neutralized. See Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 2022 (2014) (“Officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended”). For all of the reasons stated, Wilson’s conduct in shooting Brown as he advanced on Wilson, and until he fell to the ground, was not objectively unreasonable and thus not a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. (Page 85)
[25] Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of Witness 101, there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. (Page 86)
For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed.
I caught a bit of Clinton’s screech at the NAACP confab yesterday. She was screeching, eyes popping, fist waving demanding that the police “stop killing African-Americans.”
The Clinton campaign now has only two issues, attacking Trump, and attacking the police.
Give her time....
She’s not going to swing indies or others on the fence going this route. All she is doing is trying to shore up her lefty base that’s ticked off that Bernie is supporting her.
I hope she goes all bat poop crazy attacking the police at the Dem convention in front if the Philadelphia PD providing security. Please Hillary, please.
Yep and it’s incendiary.
Apparently Hillary rejects the finding of an extensive investigation by Eric Holder’s DoJ, that make it obvious that Brown attacked the cop. Per Hillary, numerous disinterested African American witnesses lied. Truth has no place in this woman’s life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.