Posted on 12/02/2014 2:17:31 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Missouri law allows a person to use deadly force defending himself when he has a “reasonable belief” he needs to use deadly force. The law goes on to define a reasonable belief as one based on “grounds that could lead a reasonable person in the same situation to the same belief.” Unsurprisingly, Officer Darren Wilson testified to the grand jury that he reasonably believed he needed to use deadly force to defend himself against Michael Brown. But the clinching argument on this point is that other reasonable people — i.e., some credible eyewitnesses — agreed with Wilson.
In previous posts, I have discussed how the grand jury process was fair, how Officer Wilson’s testimony covered the bases of Missouri self-defense law, and how the physical evidence bolstered his credibility. In this post, I turn to eyewitness testimony — which The Post has helpfully collected in this story. It would be difficult to discuss in detail the testimony of all of several dozen eyewitnesses. But a defendant raising self-defense need not show that his interpretation was the only one; rather he need only show that it was a reasonable one — i.e., a conclusion a reasonable person could reach based on all the facts.
Against that backdrop, I want to review in detail the testimony of one seemingly reasonable and neutral observer — Witness No. 10. If his objective assessment was that Officer Wilson acted appropriately, that would be strong evidence demonstrating that Wilson’s belief was reasonable....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
that isn’t what holder wants.
he wants to exploit this to set up entirely different law when it comes to cops dealing with black suspects/criminals. he wants to establish special privileges for black crimimals.
In the end, he might “want” a silk blindfold and a name-brand mentholated cigarette, but he’ll probably just get an old, dirty rag and a generic smoke.
The problem with a civil rights trial is the Feds have to show Darren Wilson’s actions was colored by racist motives.
That’s very difficult to prove. You can flip that around and argue Michael Brown hated Wilson because he was white. Why else would he go after him?
By any reasonable belief, that is a hate crime.
Comedy gold.
Thank you witness 10 for having the courage to speak the truth. And for forging ahead despite the intimidation, and the ‘smoke and mirrors’.
Now that the facts are out...oh wait its too naive to believe the MSM will report the fact based narrative when the lie feeds into their leftwing objective!
Don’t count on it. Obama knows he can keep racial fires going by stoking this situstion.
He and his administration are as culpable as the thugs in the street in sacking Furguson.
Holder has to keep the animals happy until another shiny object can be found to wave in front of them.
I think Holder et al want to make it dangerous for police to even arrest Negroes- for anything at all. Negroes are being molded into a thug class such as the Soviet Union used against the law abiding citizenry in the USSR to keep them off balance. Non political criminals were treated leniently and sometimes ignored because they afflicted those who would be middle class in a civilized society, kept them in line. In the camps the non politicals were the prisoner bosses. The Communists called them “social allies.”
I think Holder et al want to make it dangerous for police to even arrest Negroes- for anything at all. Negroes are being molded into a thug class such as the Soviet Union used against the law abiding citizenry in the USSR to keep them off balance. Non political criminals were treated leniently and sometimes ignored because they afflicted those who would be middle class in a civilized society, kept them in line. In the camps the non politicals were the prisoner bosses. The Communists called them “social allies.”
This is in WaPo???
“Witness 10 was afraid that Brown might have killed the police officer inside the car when he heard the firing of a single shot. (The ballistics evidence shows two shots were fired at the car, so that is a point of difference.)”
Wilson also said he fired one shot in the car, but it is rather easy to explain why he thought that.
Likely both shots were in rapid succession, which would sound like one shot inside the car. Also the noise from that first shot in the car would be deafening, anyone that has ever fired a gun in a closed area knows this, especially a handgun. You wouldn’t hear anything for awhile after that first shot.
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.