Please Make Your Donation Today!
You Can Help Drastically Shorten FReepathons by Donating Monthly!
VERY Generous FReeper Sponsors are donating $10 for every New Monthly Donor!
Please Sign Up to Donate Monthly!
Posted on 11/20/2014 1:04:15 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
As soon as the grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri,, announces its decision over whether to charge Police Officer Darren Wilson for fatally shooting teenager Michael Brown, the public will almost certainly turn to the Justice Department and say: Your move, Mr. Attorney General.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has vowed a "fair" and "thorough" investigation into the matter. But when pressed by ABC News in August, Holder seemed to acknowledge federal charges against Wilson are hardly guaranteed.
What are the hurdles to bring civil rights charges against a police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager?
Here are the top four challenges facing federal prosecutors, according to many of those who've prosecuted such cases:
1. "The law"
Under federal law, prosecutors need to prove two things: (1) it was "unreasonable" for Wilson to believe Brown posed a threat to him or the public, and (2) Wilson "willfully" deprived Brown of his constitutional rights.
"It's hard enough to prove willfulness to a jury when an officer beats a handcuffed suspect," said Rachel Harmon, a former Justice Department official who prosecuted several cases of excessive force by police. "It is much more difficult still when an officer uses force in an ongoing encounter with an unrestrained … suspect, even if that person is unarmed."(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
The “justice” department has already made the cop go through hell.
Acquitted or not, he has already been sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.
It would be more efficient if special guns were designed for the police that fired backwards.
That way whenever an officer had to fire his gun in self defense he would be killed immediately, saving months of expensive investigations.
Because its BS?
Because its BS?
Because its BS?
Because its BS?
5. Because the Officer is innocent of any wrongdoing or criminal act
We are entering an age of savagery because parents were intimidated by their child doing vicious things like being gay or joining the Taleban. Now they are grown and it is too late... because not only do they do the vicious things testing with the help of a spiritually destructive and intimidating satan, they outright encourage prosecution of those criticizing and stopping the behavior.
No. I will not. And stop calling me certainly.
No matter -
an “unarmed black teenager” was killed by a white cop.
No evidence is necessary.
What makes it hard for the feds is that he acted properly. I’m among the first to condemn cops for excessive use of force, but in this case it appears completely justified.
“Unarmed” is becoming the most over used word in the dictionary.
lol...so true.
"But"? Since when are "fair" and "charges not guaranteed" mutually exclusive?
Not really ... more like:
1) Too much evidence that the shooting was justifiable self defense.
“Brown family attorney Ben Crump . . .”
Well, look who’s back.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Beware of nonspecific constitutional rights being trumpeted by the corrupt feds. Such “rights” are probably being used to win votes from low-information voters for Democrats, such voters probably never having been taught about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers.
Note that since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect citizens from alleged police brutality, the feds have no enumerated protections to apply to the states via the 14th Amendment.
1. "The law"
ROFLMAO.... oh, wait a minute, was that irony, or just a joke? The "Law" is not now, nor ever has been, a factor that this administration pays any attention to. He would rather provoke a civil uprising.
Not one shred of evidence that he was a decent guy, who minded his business, paid taxes, worked hard, etc.
In fact hanging all of your hopes and dreams of "racial justice" on a guy who threw a small Asian guy around while stealing cigars seems SO convoluted.
I can't think of a LESS sympathetic creature than Mike Brown.
He had no compunction about roughing up someone over a $40 box of Swisher Sweets.
Is it such a "crazy" notion that he's a bad man who would assault a police officer? Particularly when he knew he was going to the pokey over the robbery.
Racial agitators need to pick better "choir boys" than Mike Brown or Trayvon Martin.
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.