Friday, October 17, 2014

Officer Wilson: Blood on His Hands (and Elsewhere?)

NYT tonight with alleged scoop from government officials briefed by federal investigators--that FBI forensics tests found Michael Brown's blood inside Officer Darren Wilson's car, on his gun and on his uniform, which if true may back cop's claim that they struggled through window and two shots fires there, wounding the youth in the arm.  The Times points out that even if true this does not change dispute over why Wilson had to shoot Brown so many times later from a distance.   And this:
The officials said that while the federal investigation was continuing, the evidence so far did not support civil rights charges against Officer Wilson. To press charges, the Justice Department would need to clear a high bar, proving that Officer Wilson willfully violated Mr. Brown’s civil rights when he shot him.
No civil rights charges does not mean the local grand jury cannot bring charges.  But
I have said for weeks that I seriously doubt Wilson will faces charges from either the feds or locals because of the "state of mind" clause after the struggle--whatever it was--at the car.  May not be fair or right but that's what I expect.

1 comment:

Salem's Ghost said...

I find the witch hunt attitude surrounding this case to be more troubling that the case itself.

So far, as facts have trickled out, each one lines up with the account the cop gave immediately after the event. The story from the protest/accuser group has been found false in each case.

First Mr Brown was just minding his own business, then it turns out he'd just throw a little store clerk around like a rag, while robbing a store. Brown was stealing a box of 20 cigars of the type used to roll blunts.

As it turns out, Mr Brown had at least one drug in his system at the time of his final altercation, and was a fan of Lean, which damages the brain over time. No tests for Lean etc were run.
He was walking down the center line of a street after committing a felony and with a handful of stolen goods, hardly what a person does in normal state of mind.
But this is not found not discussed.

First the witness just happened to be there, then it seems he was an along for the robbery.

First, the same witness told of Mr Brown being shot multiple times in the back, then he had no shots from the back.

The press forgot to mention that the witness has a long arrest record, including several for violent crimes. Perhaps he has a slight antagonism to the law?

We are to believe that an officer would attempt to pull a suspect through the cruiser window while himself confined between the steering wheel and seatback, giving the suspect every advantage to attack. Why would this or any officer make himself a sitting target to 280# 6'3" suspect, knowing the suspect could grab his gun from that position?
Then that part of the story changed.

Then a celebrity pathologist from New York City was employed to offer a public story accusing the cop, and the best they could do was "maybe possibly he had his hands up when one shot hit", while conveniently failing to mention evidence suggesting otherwise. Why does an event in Missouri require a pathologist from New York City?

After much spade work, it is found that the cop started out with bad influences from his parents yet made an honest life for himself. He has a perfect record on the job, something very unusual for people from such backgrounds. Yet still the press attacks.

Much like in the days of witch tests, the only conclusion is that the cop must be hung.

Pinch yourself, there's something wrong here.