Skip to comments.Sharyl Attkisson Fact-Checks 2020 Democrats Over The ‘Murder’ Of Michael Brown
Posted on 08/11/2019 12:39:34 PM PDT by rktman
Investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson fired back at Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren over a tweet memorializing the 2009 death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.
Browns death on August 9, 2009, at the hands of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, sparked nationwide protests as the public seized on later-debunked claims that Brown had thrown up his hands in surrender prior to Wilson shooting him.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Gray beaver, or deer with wide canyon, speak with forked tongue again!
All three showed irrefutable evidence that the dead punk had a close contact bullet wound to his hand which supports the cop's claim that the punk tried to take his service weapon early in the encounter.
The "Gentle Giant" was,in fact,a hood rat who had clearly listened to too much gangsta rap.
Gentle giant. Whatever the ‘black community” wants to believe, is true. Trump 2020 is what it’s all about. Pray for as America
[ The “Gentle Giant” was,in fact,a hood rat who had clearly listened to too much gangsta rap. ]
Oh you must not say that. Because it’s all benevolent and stuff.
It was in 2014, NOT 2009.
Such a gentle giant.....
Another case of Obama instigating race riots.
It’s just crazy how these Dems have to go back to the same old themes, over and over and over. They cannot let this stuff go. An example of one has to turn into a dozen examples via repetition. The Michael Brown incident is settled science.
What supposed affinity does an Elizabeth Warren have to do with a Michael Brown. What’s her ownership of that incident? None, zero. What’s her particular take? That Brown was Black? And she isn’t but feels guilty about it? And Trump is a racist so he sent out a message to the officer’s decoder ring to kill him? In 2014 before he was president? Because he knew he’d be elected with Russian help and wanted to get a jump start on killing Black man? Because White supremacists working to elect Trump before he had even announced his candidacy had it in for young Black thugs? Ms. Warren needs to get a padded cell adjoining the one that should be occupied by 8-8 Heil Hitler guy.
One thing is perfectly clear: The Dems are absolutely terrified at losing the Black vote. In full panic. This will drive them insane, as much or more than they already are.
“Hands up! Don’t shoot!” never happened.
TWENTY FIVE TOP QUOTES FROM THE DOJ’S REPORT ON THE MICHAEL BROWN SHOOTING
 The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not support the conclusion that Wilsons uses of deadly force were objectively unreasonable under the Supreme Courts definition. (Page 5)
 when the store clerk tried to stop Brown, Brown used his physical size to stand over him and forcefully shove him away. (Page 6)
 Wilson was aware of the theft and had a description of the suspects as he encountered Brown and Witness 101. (Page 6)
 Autopsy results and bullet trajectory, skin from Browns palm on the outside of the SUV door as well as Browns DNA on the inside of the drivers door corroborate Wilsons account that during the struggle, Brown used his right hand to grab and attempt to control Wilsons gun. (Page 6)
 there is no credible evidence to disprove Wilsons account of what occurred inside the SUV. (Page 7)
 autopsy results confirm that Wilson did not shoot Brown in the back as he was running away because there were no entrance wounds to Browns back. (Page 7)
 witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts (Page 8)
 several witnesses stated that Brown appeared to pose a physical threat to Wilson as he moved toward Wilson. (Page 8)
 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)
 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)
 Wilsons account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses (Page 12)
 Wilsons account was consistent with those results, and consistent with the accounts of other independent eyewitnesses, whose accounts were also consistent with the physical evidence. Wilsons 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 Wilsons account to be credible. (Page 16)
 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)
 Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilsons account and are consistent with the physical evidence. (Page 78)
 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)
 there are no witnesses who could testify credibly that Wilson shot Brown while Brown was clearly attempting to surrender. (Page 83)
 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)
 The media has widely reported that there is witness testimony that Brown said dont shoot as he held his hands above his head. In fact, our investigation did not reveal any eyewitness who stated that Brown said dont shoot. (Page 83)
 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)
 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.
 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)
 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)
 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)
 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, Wilsons 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)
 Given that Wilsons 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.
They don't have anything else.
You are correct
August 9, 2014; 5 years ago
It was reported he stole cigars. I think he had a little business going on the side (he would “modify” the cigars). Or so it appears.
Never forget that the Obama/Holder Justice Dept. strenuously objected to Ferguson PD’s releasing of the video.
Well, perhaps they HAVE chosen truth over facts after all. Contact the author of the article for clarification.
gentle giant - minus five
Remember all the photos shown of Brown on the Lame Stream Media were of him at 12 years of age...
Proof positive that in every case the fake phoney fraudulent media Conducts the orchestra and the people listen without question
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.