Posted on 05/04/2019 6:49:38 AM PDT by Kaslin
The network of street and campus demagogues known as Black Lives Matter pretty much has operated with impunity since its founding. But a court ruling late last month could make these social media-based grievance peddlers think twice before targeting cops.
On April 24, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit unanimously ruled that an injured Baton Rouge, La., police officer has legal standing to sue DeRay Mckesson (he prefers not to capitalize the “k”), Black Lives Matter’s unofficial mouthpiece and most visible organizer. Mckesson, the complaint read, in coaxing a large group of demonstrators to block traffic on a highway back on July 9, 2016, created the conditions for the attack on the officer, identified only as John Doe. The decision overturns a district court ruling. And it is the right call.
Black Lives Matter (BLM), now with dozens of chapters across the U.S., came together in July 2013 following the justified acquittal by a Florida state jury of George Zimmerman, a white neighborhood patrol volunteer charged with murder in the shooting death of a black teen attacker, Trayvon Martin. The group attained a national profile in August 2014 when it sponsored continuous street rallies in Ferguson, Mo. to protest the police shooting death of an “unarmed” young black adult, Michael Brown, who in fact had violently assaulted the officer only a minute or two before. Rioting occurred that month, and again more destructively, that November after a county grand jury decided not to indict the officer.
With Black Lives Matter, the preordained script is “white oppressor, black victim,” regardless of location.
It was about 12:30 AM, July 5, 2016. Baton Rouge police had just received a “911” call about a large black male pulling a gun on someone in front of a convenience store. The man, Alton Sterling, was upset that this person objected to his selling bootleg CDs there. Sterling, who had a lengthy criminal rap sheet, also happened to be carrying a loaded .38 pistol in his pants. When two officers, both white, arrived on the scene, Sterling reacted aggressively, provoking a violent altercation. During the fracas, Sterling was observed reaching for his gun. In response, one or both officers shot him multiple times. Though rushed to the hospital, it was too late. Sterling had died. Bystander and police bodycam videos recorded the incident.
Radical activists across the country fumed. For days, Baton Rouge was the focal point of BLM anti-police rallies. Then, on July 17, things turned deadly. A black separatist from the Kansas City area named Gavin Long ambushed and shot six law enforcement officers. Long would be shot dead by a SWAT team, but not before three of the wounded officers – two white and one black – also died.
Here is where the lawsuit comes in. On the night of July 9, about a week prior to Long’s wanton vengeance, a Black Lives Matter rally in Baton Rouge also could have turned lethal, thanks in part to the group’s roving ambassador, DeRay Mckesson. A Baltimore native, Mckesson led demonstrators onto Airline Highway, right near police headquarters, for the purpose of blocking traffic. Police made more than a hundred arrests after the crowd refused to move. One of those cops, the aforementioned “John Doe,” was hit in the head by a concrete block, which caused injuries to his jaw, brain and head, and also knocked out one or more teeth.
DeRay Mckesson was among those arrested. Though not wearing his trademark blue Patagonia down vest (it was hot that night), he was conspicuously egging on the crowd. Officer Doe seemed aware of that. After his emergency hospital stay, he filed a federal damage suit against Mckesson. By inducing protestors to block traffic, he argued, Mckesson created the conditions for the ambush.
Unfortunately, U.S. District Judge Brian Jackson, an Obama appointee, wasn’t receptive to Doe. On September 28, 2017 he dismissed the case with prejudice, concluding that BLM is a social movement and thus lacks the capacity to be sued. The plaintiff, added Jackson, “utterly failed to state a plausible claim” and instead launched a “confused attack” against Black Lives Matter and other demonstrators. A more reprehensible ruling would be hard to imagine. Here was a cop who had suffered life-threatening injuries accused of being the attacker.
Doe appealed. And procedurally, he has prevailed. On April 24, the court ruled 3-0 that the officer’s suit can go forward. Judge E. Grady Jolly wrote: “Given the intentional lawlessness of this aspect of the demonstration, Mckesson should have known that leading the demonstrators onto a busy highway was most nearly certain to provoke a confrontation between police and the mass of demonstrators…”
Adding to this welcome news were decisions by federal and state authorities not to prosecute the officers in the Alton Sterling shooting. Just two days after Sterling’s death, the U.S. Department of Justice had opened a civil rights probe. On May 2, 2017 the department announced that it would not file charges. After the announcement, State Attorney General Jeff Landry announced that he would investigate possible violations of the Louisiana Criminal Code. In March 2018, his office announced that the officers acted in a “reasonable and justifiable manner.”
DeRay Mckesson reacted to the new civil suit ruling this way: “I’m disappointed and troubled by the 5th Circuit’s reversal of the district court decision. I am currently exploring my legal options and will respond formally soon.” The rest of us, meanwhile, can take pleasure knowing that Black Lives Matter, a rent-a-riot social media network, is less than invincible. Perhaps Officer Doe now will get the monetary relief he deserves.
I'd like my money back, please. You took it. You didn't ask me. And your program has been an abject failure.
Great...sue these racists into oblivion. What uncivil losers.
Deray is now very rich. He hangs out with celebrities and travels the world. I’ve seen it firsthand. He no longer associates with the poor unless there is money to be made off their backs.
The scammers at the SPLC have been getting their come uppance of late too. JJ and Al have managed to stay above the fray somehow.
‘In the valley of the Jolly...Ho Ho Ho...Teen Giant.’
How is being vulnerable to assault good for people from bigoted hostile bullies?
Perhaps Brene Brown can explain!
A Louisiana Court Is Trying to Silence Black Lives Matter’s DeRay Mckesson
https://www.thenation.com/article/deray-mckesson-blm-lawsuit-fifth-circuit/
They’ll just disband and reconstitute under another name like ACORN did.
The very hour.
“Hands up! Don’t shoot!” never happened.
TWENTY FIVE TOP QUOTES FROM THE DOJ’S REPORT ON THE MICHAEL BROWN SHOOTING
(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.
The more they’re given, the greater their sense of entitlement grows. The family of a criminal who was shot and killed by a legally carrying citizen when the criminal held a gun on customers at a dollar store he was trying to rob, actually had the nerve to berate the hero citizen for killing their criminal would-be murderer son. They told a reporter that the citizen should have just minded his own business because their criminal son wasn’t holding the gun on him! This was I Mobile AL. Shortly before the criminal tried to rob the dollar store, he had robbed a seafood restaurant, holding a gun on employees.
Very good news, not others should sue as well.
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.