Posted on 08/28/2019 6:23:29 PM PDT by MarvinStinson
Elizabeth Warren’s statement that Michael Brown was murdered by a police officer:
This claim is so contrary to the facts that even the Washington Post gave it four “Pinocchios” — the most adverse rating it awards to false statements.
Warren’s lie about Michael Brown is part of her campaign to disparage law enforcement. Through that campaign, she hopes to win over left-wing and African-American voters.
There’s also a good chance she believes that law enforcement officers, as a collective, are incorrigibly racist. This is dogma among the America-disparaging left, of which Warren is a member in excellent standing.
Now, a major law enforcement organization in Warren’s home state has lashed back at the Senator. The Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association complains that Warren’s repeated attacks on law enforcement are putting the lives of police officers in danger.
In a letter to their Senator, the Chiefs call her rhetoric “appalling” and “another slap in the face” that endangers cops. They state:
"Having had two Police Officers murdered in your own state, in the past 18 months, we expect our elected Officials to condemn the murder and assaults of Police Officers. Instead on multiple occasions, you choose to fan the fires of divide for you own political gains. Shame on you!"
Yarmouth police Chief Frank Frederickson, commander of one of the two murdered officers, has invited Warren to spend time in a police department in order to understand what actually takes place. Warren, of course, has not accepted the invitation.
She has no desire to understand what actually happens, and no concern about the consequences of her fact-free, inflammatory rhetoric. Her sole desire is to gain votes.
Heaven help our country if Elizabeth Warren becomes president.
Good. We’ve been hearing too much lately about police being manipulated by the Left, such as the do-nothing force in Portland.
A lot of law enforcement in the country.
Union folks.
Not gonna be happy with her.
There is also the chance that she knows someone is going to be arrested and she wants to make all sorts of accusations.
True. These opportunistic, selfish liars are putting law enforcement officers lives at risk.
That one who shot the officers in the backs sitting in their patrol car in NY was motivated to kill a cop after hearing anti-cop rhetoric. The cops were just sitting there watching a crime scene area.
Obama welcomed the “fry the pigs up like bacon” and “pigs in a blanket” BLM chant leaders more than once to a warm welcome in the White House. Barf.
Warren is a tried and true Leftist who cares little about democracy or protecting the hard working men and women in our country. That, to me, is a given. My comment/question is a little broader. The Left uniformly bashes police and wants to decriminalize or reduce punishment for many quality of life, drug and violent crimes. If the Left succeeds, what will it accomplish? Who will protect us from the criminals causing us harm? Are the attacks on the police just the beginning of an effort to recast law enforcement into a tool of the ruling class who will turn a blind eye to everyday crime, but will quash any efforts by the people to speak or worship freely? If that is the long term plan, then we are in a dangerous place.
“Hands up! Don’t shoot!” never happened.
TWENTY FIVE TOP QUOTES FROM THE DOJ’S REPORT ON THE MICHAEL BROWN SHOOTING
[01] The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not support the conclusion that Wilson’s uses of deadly force were “objectively unreasonable” under the Supreme Court’s definition. (Page 5)
[02] when the store clerk tried to stop Brown, Brown used his physical size to stand over him and forcefully shove him away. (Page 6)
[03] Wilson was aware of the theft and had a description of the suspects as he encountered Brown and Witness 101. (Page 6)
[04] Autopsy results and bullet trajectory, skin from Brown’s palm on the outside of the SUV door as well as Brown’s DNA on the inside of the driver’s door corroborate Wilson’s account that during the struggle, Brown used his right hand to grab and attempt to control Wilson’s gun. (Page 6)
[05] there is no credible evidence to disprove Wilson’s account of what occurred inside the SUV. (Page 7)
[06] autopsy results confirm that Wilson did not shoot Brown in the back as he was running away because there were no entrance wounds to Brown’s back. (Page 7)
[07] witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts (Page 8)
[08] several witnesses stated that Brown appeared to pose a physical threat to Wilson as he moved toward Wilson. (Page 8)
[09] 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)
[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)
[11] Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses (Page 12)
[12] Wilson’s account was consistent with those results, and consistent with the accounts of other independent eyewitnesses, whose accounts were also consistent with the physical evidence. Wilson’s 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 Wilson’s account to be credible. (Page 16)
[13] 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)
[14] Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson’s account and are consistent with the physical evidence. (Page 78)
[15] 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)
[16] there are no witnesses who could testify credibly that Wilson shot Brown while Brown was clearly attempting to surrender. (Page 83)
[17] 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)
[18] The media has widely reported that there is witness testimony that Brown said “don’t shoot” as he held his hands above his head. In fact, our investigation did not reveal any eyewitness who stated that Brown said “don’t shoot.” (Page 83)
[19] 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)
[20] 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.
[21] 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)
[22] 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)
[23] 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)
[24] “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, Wilson’s 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)
[25] Given that Wilson’s 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.
Great, great informative post. You and Liz are two of the pillars of Free Republic. I will bookmark this. Thanks.
These quotes from Warren and Kamala Harris got nowhere near the attention they should have.
There is also the chance that she knows someone is going to be arrested and she wants to make all sorts of accusations
*************************
No idea what that could mean. Arrested for what?
Warren is a psychopathic liar and con-artist. Don’t think she’s going to get the nomination, at least not for the presidency. Perhaps for “Nut of the Year” though the competition is stiff (like many of these candidates).
#6. Yes it is the Left’s “long term plan”. Created by Marx, Engels, Lenin/Trotsky, Stalin and Beria. Destroy the people’s faith in the law enforcement establishment so that the establishment can create their own “police force” (i.e Cheka, NKVD, KGB, SFB, etc) to “protect” them from imaginary “criminals, malcontents, degenerates and counter-revolutionaries”.
Sound familiar? Just read a good history book about communism in the 20th century. Warren, Sanders, Pete Boy, etc. all sound like traditional Marxists and traitors.
Time that our police step up and say “No More Comrades”.
Warren should not be singled out. This is a Deep State program. It has led to the death of numerous law enforcement officers. Why this has not been documented is a mystery. It is obvious and easily demonstrated.
Because Warren endangered the lives of police officers with her dishonest political speech, we know that she would be capable of committing other truly horrible crimes against human rights.
When the mobs rise and they are tearing their way into this persons panic room, the phone to the Police will just ring unanswered.
Selling out the police for political gains with such lies is reprehensible
The other Warren is anti- police also.
Elizabeth Warren and Warren Wilhelm, aka Bill DeBlasio.
What’s in a name.
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.