Crime in St. Louis County has dropped so much that prosecutors have the time and manpower to reopen six-year-old cases that were cleared by the Obama/Holder Justice Department. And the prosecutor said that dropping the case was, “one of the most difficult things I’ve had to do as an elected official.” So he’s admitting that he really, really wanted to press charges. Must make cops in StL County feel all warm and fuzzy.
“And the prosecutor said that dropping the case was, “one of the most difficult things I’ve had to do as an elected official.” So he’s admitting that he really, really wanted to press charges. Must make cops in StL County feel all warm and fuzzy.”
GMTA. 46 seconds difference. And you said it better ;)
” “one of the most difficult things I’ve had to do as an elected official.”
He should have been asked what was wrong with the previous investigation, findings and trial? Why was he showing favoritism towards the family of the deceased-criminal?
Must be!
Of course, they could just have relied on this work by federal investigators and the Attorney General of the United States:
Pages 79 and following
IV. Legal Analysis The evidence discussed above does not meet the standards for presentation of an indictment set forth in the USAM and in the governing federal law. The evidence is insufficient to establish probable cause or to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 and would not be likely to survive a defense motion for acquittal at trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(a). This is true for all six to eight shots that struck Brown. 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. In contrast, Wilson’s account of Brown’s actions, if true, would establish that the shootings were not objectively unreasonable under the relevant Constitutional standards governing an officer’s use of deadly force. Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson’s account and are consistent with the physical evidence. Even if the evidence established that Wilson’s actions were unreasonable, the government would also have to prove that Wilson acted willfully, i.e. that he acted with a specific intent to violate the law. As discussed above, Wilson’s stated intent for shooting Brown was in response to a perceived deadly threat. The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson under Section 242 would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true – i.e., that Brown never punched and grabbed Wilson at the SUV, never struggled with Wilson over the gun, and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive. Not only do eyewitnesses and physical evidence corroborate Wilson’s account, but there is no credible evidence to disprove Wilson’s perception that Brown posed a 78
threat to Wilson as Brown advanced toward him. Accordingly, seeking his indictment is not permitted by Department of Justice policy or the governing law