Justice Department Won’t Charge Darren Wilson

Posted by | March 4, 2015 13:00 | Filed under: Politics Pot Luck Top Stories


Justice says the legal threshold to bring charges against Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson has not been met.

At the same time, the Justice Department painted a damning portrait of widespread racial bias in the Ferguson police department, releasing a lengthy report cataloging what the U.S. says is unconstitutional police treatment of blacks in the St. Louis suburb…

In announcing their decision not to charge Mr. Wilson, authorities noted the high legal threshold required to bring a federal case: Prosecutors must be able to prove that in confronting Mr. Brown, the officer intended to violate his rights, acting with force that wasn’t necessary and wouldn’t have been used by another officer in the same situation. A local grand jury previously decided not to indict Mr. Wilson over the incident.

[su_fb]

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

13 responses to Justice Department Won’t Charge Darren Wilson

  1. tracey marie March 4th, 2015 at 14:04

    Darren worked for the Jennings P.D. the entire dept was disbanded because of rampant and violent racism, then ferguson hired him.

    • bahlers March 4th, 2015 at 14:52

      So he’s guilty by association then? The facts of the case be damned?

      • jybarz March 4th, 2015 at 15:09

        Don’t they say if you lie with the dogs, you get the fleas? Cooked up facts? The fact is he killed an unarmed young black man. The prosecutor misled the jury and let the accused be heard but not the victim’s witnesses.

        • bahlers March 4th, 2015 at 15:15

          Which facts were cooked? Forensic evidence substantiating Willison’s testimony that there was a struggle for his gun inside the car, clear evidence that Brown’s hands were not raised at the time of the shooting, and evidence that suggests that Brown was in a sprinting position at the time of his death, are these the “cooked up facts” that you reference?

          • OldLefty March 4th, 2015 at 16:05

            There were a lot of questions raised and a lot of contradictory evidence.

            There were many witnesses who saw his hands raised.

            Page 64

            Prosecutor Kathy Alizadeh: “Is it still, you still stay with the fact that Michael Brown had his hands up and was charging?”

            Sergeant: “That’s what Darren told me he was charging at me.”

            Page 73

            Prosecutor Kathy Alizadeh: “So at the time when he had his hands raised and he was charging at him, he shot, but it wasn’t at that time he didn’t have his hands like going for a weapon.”

            Sergeant: “I don’t remember, I don’t recall.”

            Darren Wilson, who testified that same day, was not asked about the inconsistency, nor did McCulloch highlight it in his press conference.

            https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370518-grand-jury-volume-5.html

            Even the forensic evidence is misleading when there is no one countering as there would be in a trial.

            EVERYTHING from the grand jury points to the need for a trial to clear up the discrepancies.

  2. Guest March 4th, 2015 at 14:51

    So, in your opinion, he’s guilty by association?

  3. rational_thinking_one March 4th, 2015 at 17:34

    There is a reason why the Federal conviction rate in America is 99% (seriously, it’s 99%). 97% plea guilty before they even go to trial. The Feds don’t prosecute unless it’s an easy guilty verdict. And the reason that they don’t take difficult cases is that Federal prosecutors cannot match the resources of high-priced attorneys in the private sector.

  4. blues March 4th, 2015 at 18:58

    “Prosecutors must be able to prove that in confronting Mr. Brown, the officer intended to violate his rights, acting with force that wasn’t necessary and wouldn’t have been used by another officer in the same situation.”

    wasn’t there…a lot of evidence of that?

    • burqa March 5th, 2015 at 01:40

      No.
      At least I don’t recall anything that indicated Wilson decided ahead of time to violate Brown’s civil rights, or that he decided to do so on the scene while being pummeled by Brown.
      Wilson was attacked by a guy who had just acted belligerently in the course of a robbery and who thought he was entitled to walk down the middle of the street. The attacker refused lawful orders, fled and came back, charging Wilson, apparently seeking to assault him again.

      Unfortunately, what took place was we were all lied to by Brown’s pal and many, who have yet to learn to wait for the evidence to come in, anchored themselves to a conclusion immediately. As so often happens these days, the same people did not alter their opinion after eyewitness and forensic evidence showed Brown was not standing there with his hands up in surrender when a cop came up behind him and shot him in the back.
      So now they keep grasping, kinda like the way some conservatives continue to grasp at Benghazi, instead of forming an opinion that takes into account all the evidence, particularly the forensic evidence.

      The lesson that needs to be learned is to wait for all the facts are in. This should have been learned after the Duke lacrosse team case, or after the McMartin Preschool case, or any number of others where the facts told a dramatically different story than initial reports….

      • blues March 5th, 2015 at 14:37

        i thought the autopsy showed that brown was standing a great deal away when he was shot and that he did NOT charge the officer? also, i believe it was proven that he didn’t rob anyone…

        • burqa March 7th, 2015 at 14:37

          The stolen cigars were in his pocket.
          Between the robbery at the store, walking down the middle of the road, assaulting the cop and fleeing, refusing a lawful order to halt, Brown showed a belligerence, a sense of entitlement to the possessions of others and a lawless attitude.

          The forensic evidence, which is unaffected by personal opinion or the vagueries of memory, showed Brown attacked the cop in his car, and fled before turning around and coming back. He didn’t turn around and throw his hands up in surrender.
          The bloodstains showed he was coming toward the cop and continued to charge him even after the cop opened fire. He finally fell something like 10 or 12 feet in front of the cop, as I recall.
          We were told a pack of big fat lies by Brown’s eyewitness friends who told us he was standing still with his hands up in surrender when the cop shot him in the back.
          Instead of waiting for all the facts to come in, some people formed an opinion based on those lies and never changed their position despite plenty of facts that indicated something to the contrary. This is one of the lessons we need to learn – to wait because sometimes things turn out to be quite different and open-and-shut cases turn out to be otherwise.
          Same thing happened with the Duke lacrosse team case.
          Same thing happened in the McMartin Pre-school case.
          We should know from the Innocence Project that sometimes it takes decades for all the important facts to emerge.

    • fancypants March 5th, 2015 at 18:50

      Wilson found his gun before the pepper spray or so he says
      that’s why this needs to go before a jury to decide

  5. crc3 March 5th, 2015 at 09:58

    Cops always get the benefit of the doubt because “they are the law”. Intent is almost impossible to prove. As painful as it is for the Brown family …it is time to move on…

Leave a Reply