Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan marked the 12th anniversary of Michael Brown’s death by declaring that he “was murdered by a police officer in Ferguson.”
She didn’t call his death tragic or controversial, but she accused former Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson of murder as if the case had never been investigated.
It was exhaustively investigated. The Obama Justice Department reviewed physical, ballistic, forensic, medical, and autopsy evidence. Investigators interviewed more than 100 purported eyewitnesses and canvassed more than 300 homes.
They concluded the evidence didn’t support federal civil rights charges against Wilson and didn’t establish that his use of deadly force was objectively unreasonable.
As discussed above, Darren Wilson has stated his intent in shooting Michael Brown was in response to a perceived deadly threat. The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson under section 242 would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true – i.e., that Brown never assaulted Wilson at the SUV, never attempted to gain control of Wilson’s gun, and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive.
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. Even if Wilson was mistaken in his interpretation of Brown’s conduct, the fact that others interpreted that conduct the same way as Wilson precludes a determination that he acted with a bad purpose to disobey the law.
The same is true even if Wilson could be said to have acted with poor judgment in the manner in which he first interacted with Brown, or in pursuing Brown after the incident at the SUV. These are matters of policy and procedure that do not rise to the level of a Constitutional violation and thus cannot support a criminal prosecution. Cf. Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430–31 (8th Cir. 1997) (violation of internal policies and procedures does not in and of itself rise to violation of Constitution).
Because Wilson did not act with the requisite criminal intent, it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt to a jury that he violated 18 U.S.C.§ 242 when he fired his weapon at Brown.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed.
The famous “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative fared even worse. Investigators found no credible witness who could establish that Wilson shot Brown while Brown was clearly surrendering.
Some witnesses recanted, while others contradicted themselves or the physical evidence. The investigation found no eyewitness who said Brown uttered the words “don’t shoot.”
Ferguson had real problems. A separate federal investigation found unconstitutional police practices and racial discrimination inside the department. Those findings were exposed by the greatest disinfectant: sunshine; they deserved exposure and reform. They didn’t transform unsupported claims about Wilson and Brown into facts.
“Hands up, don’t shoot” nevertheless became one of the great political falsehoods of our time. Once a narrative becomes emotionally useful to the loons on the left, correcting it becomes remarkably difficult.
We’ve observed that truth play out several times, infamously with President Donald Trump’s Charlottesville remarks. His “very fine people” comment is still routinely presented as praise for neo-Nazis and white nationalists.
Hellbound and Down 