Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: E. Pluribus Unum

The rally in Richmond has all the hallmarks of a set-up. Yes, the current government has far overstepped the bounds of the rule of law and are deeply within the current flowing towards full tyranny. Yes, the people have a right to object to and protest this abuse of liberty and freedom. Unfortunately, the state government, the liars in the media, and the paid provocateurs lurking behind the scenes have control of the situation on the ground and will manipulate this situation to manufacture the optics they want to create.

I lived through the Ferguson riots and saw how these despicable people act. Ferguson has not been in the national news for a long time. Why? Because the good guys won. Unlike Baltimore and other places that have been subjected to these attacks on the freedom of the individual, Ferguson is recovering nicely from the assaults of five years ago. Why was Ferguson not destroyed by these Alinskyite attacks? The amount of prayer cover over this city was astronomical.

The evil players in the unfolding Richmond saga are expecting this battle to go according to their script. Their plan is for freedom-loving and defending citizens to walk into a trap that will provide the opportunity for a horrific false-flag attack. Don’t give them that victory. While I am very aware of the overall tactics of Alinsky disciples, I know nothing about the specifics of the city of Richmond. However, I am confident that there are a large number of Bible-believing churches (not liberation theology, SJW fronts) in the Richmond area.

The best, on-the-fly reaction to the steps taken by the unfortunately legally elected government of Virginia is to switch the rally from being held in the Northam-devised kill box to the various churches, coffee shops, hotel lobbies, and other sites in the area. I saw God do things that were impossible for the good citizens of Ferguson to do and the results were amazing. God loves Richmond just as much as He does Ferguson and, if His people will ask, He will provide incredible answers.

Multiple gatherings of Bible-believing, God-trusting patriots, in diverse places away from the pre-planned targeted area, will produce a countermove to Northam’s evil plans in such a way that the country will be astounded. By all means, go to Richmond and make your voices heard. Just don’t walk into a pre-planned kill zone. Join with other believers (Where two or more are gathered in my Name, I am there, too) and ask God to intervene in ways you cannot. You will witness miracles.


9 posted on 01/18/2020 9:34:42 AM PST by ferg flute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: ferg flute

“Ferguson has not been in the national news for a long time. Why?”

TWENTY FIVE TOP QUOTES FROM THE DOJ’S REPORT ON THE MICHAEL BROWN SHOOTING

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf

(For official DOJ report, Google “DOJ Report on Shooting of Michael Brown PDF.”)

[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.


10 posted on 01/18/2020 9:39:29 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Democrats only believe in democracy when they win the election.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: ferg flute

It is not going to go by their script and is highly likely to become a disaster of epic proportions for them.


16 posted on 01/18/2020 10:02:04 AM PST by DarthVader (Not by speeches & majority decisions will the great issues of the day be decided but by Blood & Iron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson