Posted on 08/15/2018 7:28:46 AM PDT by rktman
Four years ago, the trendy city of Ferguson, Mo. -- an up-and-coming gentrifying community in north St. Louis county -- went up in flames after a very large black man assaulted a police officer, grabbed for his gun, and was shot to death. George Soros-linked groups spent $33 million dollars shipping rioters into the community to loot and pillage. A grand jury was convened to assess whether Officer Darren Wilson should be charged with a crime in the killing, and this after a DoJ investigation found no substantial evidence to charge Wilson. The grand jury announced they were not going to indict Wilson, and St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCullough announced he was closing the case.
But that was then.
In the Tuesday primary election McCullough lost to a black Ferguson city councilman named Wesley Bell who is clearly interested in reintroducing charges in this case.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“Hands up! Don’t shoot!” never happened.
TWENTY FIVE TOP QUOTES FROM THE DOJ’S REPORT ON THE MICHAEL BROWN SHOOTING
[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’m sure this will end well. *SMIRK*
Hmmm. Guess you missed the relevant part. You know, where the left stream media ran with the BS and it is now written in stone. Facts? They don’t need no stinkin’ facts.
Ferguson and the false narrative of Michael Brown is the modern day Big Lie repeated over and over again until it has become true in the minds of millions and continues to justify the violent hatred of America, Americans, white people and police everywhere. There is little to distinguish it from Goebbels’ campaign to disenfranchise Jews of their right to exist. If you relentlessly vilify a segment of society enough, you can dehumanize them to the point where their lives are forfeit. The left is playing with the most dangerous kind of fire there is.
If I were Wilson, I would “disappear” and adopt a new identity. I would never return to Ferguson. If he does, he’ll end up like Emmett Till.
They will get what they deserve, a ghetto with no competent police and increasing crime.
Yup. As mentioned in “Death of A Nation” which we saw Monday. Fairly decent audience for a Monday 2 p.m. showing. Only problem was it appeared to be the choir being preached to. Those that need to see it will NOT. And if they did they’d declare it an alt-right wing extremist white nationalist propaganda hit piece. And you would get the tired argument you always get that the parties “switched places” in the 60’s. Heard that more than once. Facts? Pffffttttt!
I agree completely.
A haunting?
Are they calling mike a spook now?
Four years ago, the trendy city of Ferguson, Mo. — an up-and-coming gentrifying community in north St. Louis county
Dark humor. Don’t be niggardly with your comments.
Yeah, almost “coffee’d” my keyboard when I saw that.
Definition of niggardly
1 : grudgingly mean about spending or granting : begrudging
… management was being niggardly with raises. —Dana Canedy
2 : provided in meanly limited supply
… niggardly funding of planetary science. —Richard Wolkomir
— niggardliness noun
— niggardly adverb
See niggardly defined for English-language learners
See niggardly defined for kids
Examples of niggardly in a Sentence
she’s a niggardly woman, so don’t expect a handout from her
niggardly portions of meat for dinner
Recent Examples of niggardly from the Web
To tap one of the country’s two largest and most niggardly mines is hard enough. ...”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/niggardly
Word origins
“Niggardly” (noun: “niggard”) is an adjective meaning “stingy” or “miserly”. It can be traced back at least to the Middle English word nigon, which has the same meaning, and is related to the Old Norse verb nigla, which means “to fuss about small matters”.
“Nigger”, a racial epithet in English, derives from the Spanish/Portuguese word negro, meaning “black”, and the French word nègre. Both negro and noir (and therefore also nègre and nigger) ultimately come from nigrum, the accusative case singular masculine and neuter form of the Latin masculine adjective niger, meaning “black” or “dark”. It first appeared in 1574, and first took on a derogatory meaning in 1775.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_%22niggardly%22
“I’m sure this will end well...”
Yes. Mrs. Brown will run for Mayor, or Governor, or President.
City council first stop right?
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.