Why did the DOJ side with Darren Wilson ?

Uh, by violating Brown's right to due process. Wilson took that right out of Brown's hands when he decided to shoot and not arrest. Explain to me how a huge number of White mass murderers (such as James Holmes) manage to be brought into custody peacefully, but someone who poses relatively little threat ends up dead?



lets see, the dumb ass criminal charged a cop ... clearly the thug was looking for a fight.

so lets review, walking towards someone that has a gun. being a criminal. walking towards a person with a gun, that is barking orders.

the thug refused to listen and kept on walking towards the cop

the thug is shot

what don't you understand?

a career criminal is gone. so what?

tax payers will save money
 
Sure woulda been neato to see some fingerprints on that gun that got grabbed.

Just like the terrible orbital skull fractures from the merciless demon pummeling.

Yup.

Oh welp.

Nice work at the Ferguson PD, if you can get it.
 
Sure woulda been neato to see some fingerprints on that gun that got grabbed.

Just like the terrible orbital skull fractures from the merciless demon pummeling.

Yup.

Oh welp.

Nice work at the Ferguson PD, if you can get it.

*Internet high five*
 
Don't the people on here think the DOJ might have thought about fingerprints and such before deciding the cop was justified in shooting the criminal?
It is sort of a surprise that people on a forum would think they know more about the case than the DOJ.
 
Janet Allon writes in AlterNet:

3. Megyn Kelly stubbornly and utterly misses the point in Ferguson.

After an extensive federal investigation that uncovered profound racial bias on the part of the police in Ferguson, Missouri, Megyn Kelly remained primarily concerned with what happened to the white police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown.

Odd.

Poor Darren Wilson, who is neither dead nor under indictment for shooting an unarmed teenager. The court of public opinion was so mean to him. This injustice far outweighs the well-documented suffering of Ferguson’s black residents who have been putting up with racist policing resulting in injury, impoverishment, and imprisonment for years.

Kelly went after her guest, Democratic strategist Mark Hannah, when he said the protests might have been fueled by “perceptions” of a racist police force, perceptions that were more than borne out by the DOJ’s investigation.

Nope, Kelly countered. She’s sticking with the absurd notion that Al Sharpton is the one responsible for stirring up all the trouble.

No, Megyn, Al Sharpton did not ignite any tinderbox in Ferguson. The police did that. Residents there know full well what they’ve been enduring. And now, thanks to the DOJ investigation, the world knows it as well.

And on that pesky pattern of racially biased policing in Ferguson, Kelly remains perplexed. “That justifies this, Mark? What we saw, all these folks with their ‘hands up, don’t shoot,’ which did not happen!”

Didn't it?

But, yes. We’d say that taking to the streets and protesting these chronic abuses with that powerful gesture is more than justified.
 
In this country, you are presumed innocent unless evidence proves otherwise. From all I have read, there was no evidence to disprove the cop's case.

Keep this in mind, as this is critical to everything.

Now, the big problem with the above is the Ferguson police department and medical examiner cleansed the evidence. The body was tainted following the autopsy to ensure subsequent autopsies would support its findings, Wilson was asked to wash his hands before they documented anything on them, and this is just what I know off the top of my head. While you're 100% right that there is no evidence of a crime and should be treated as a not guilty person, the problem is Ferguson ensured we wouldn't find any evidence and forever buried the truth of this situation.

Yet people are holding Wilson responsible. Not the police department who covered it up, the guy who did the deed. And let's remember something else: before Wilson had filed his report or given a statement, the Ferguson police department released the video of the robbery and gave the statement that it had nothing to do with the shooting, spitting in the face of procedure and contradicting every statement Wilson himself later gave. The point of all this is simple: Ferguson concluded Wilson did something wrong before any investigating had been done. The possibility of the pre-existing racial tension causing a few race baiters to lie about Brown putting his hands up and a mob echoed due to mass hysteria never crossed their mind. Wilson was guilty in their eyes. They shifted to damage control before they looked at anything. Yet people are holding Wilson responsible.


That's only six ways. Point six is just four and five consolidated and latter expounded upon in point eight, and points nine and ten are duplicates. On top of that, some of these don't address the whole of the white community, or even a generalization of white people. Points one, three, and six address college professors, police officers, and judges more than they address everyday situations. That's really three and a half ways a common white person is racist, and even the generalization that all white people think this exact way is just as racist; if not more so since some of these examples deal with subconscious actions, not a conscious decision like your statement.

Oh, by the way. Everyone hating on Wilson, are you also hating on the three officers in Pasco, Washington who were filmed shooting a non-white man with his hands up? I doubt it. In fact, I'm willing to bet most of you didn't know about that until I just mentioned it since the case is frequently getting buried. After all, one of the officers happened to be of the same race as the victim, so there's no room for race baiters, right? Or was it the fact that he may not have even attacked a police officer since there's been no one to corroborate the police's story of him throwing a rock, something that could make even the police's attempt to arrest him a hate crime? Or was it made unappealing by the fact that the victim was a Mexican named Antonio Zambrano-Montes instead of a black person? Or are you going to be like all the other people I've encountered: "You don't run from police!" "You don't throw rocks at police!" and make no mention of him putting his hands up - things you never did with Brown and found appalling when someone actually did?
 
Last edited:
Both Wilson and the Ferguson PD were being broadcast for what they were and what they did from Day One. They are one and the same. All the lies, all the distractions, all the obfuscations, all the washing and coverups, from start to finish, everything.

And it worked. You can all go back to sleep, the big bad demon what terrified you is gone now. :)
 
I don't understand the hardship people have with this issue. In this country, you are presumed innocent unless evidence proves otherwise. From all I have read, there was no evidence to disprove the cop's case. You don't find a cop guilty for murder just because he's white and the "victim" is black.

From what I've read, there was also nothing to disprove Wilson shot Brown, or that anyone else did anything else to contribute to Brown's death. I agree you don't convict solely due to race or deny "innocent until proven guilty", but there was proof Wilson was guilty of killing Brown, & there is no justification for that.

BTW, do y'all forget that the "victim" had stolen goods from a convenience store just minutes earlier? It was captured on security camera, as he left the store and assaulted the store keeper! Who sounds more guilty in this case?

Tough call: The one who got off with no punishment at all, or the one who gets nothing at all... to ever do, see, etc. ever again for the remainder of his life he doesn't get to have?

Let it go. It's over.

Only b/c I don't live there. If I did, I'd find Wilson, & he'd be proven to have shot Brown, which would be justification for my having run him over. (How? I believe self-defense &/or defense of others is a legal justification, & I have/had no proof he wasn't going to shoot anyone else.)

Oh, and one more gripe I have about this. Was it proper for the community to show its outrage over the shooting by rioting, looting, and burning the stores in their own neighborhoods?

Yeah. Last I checked, cleaning up after such things is (at least partially) something police are supposed to do... The ones who do their jobs instead of being vigilantes.

If the people in the community have a problem with law enforcement, join the police department, join Neighborhood watch, video tape strangers in your neighborhood, spend more times outdoors so would be law breakers realize they are being watched... and work with the cops to stop crime and criminals.

I would never join police; They might partner me up with this guy & put me in the same cruiser, making me that much closer & easier to shoot. Also, your last phrase ("work with...") implies that's what they do, when this man was doing the exact opposite.

You don't burn down your own neighborhood! How fucking stupid is that?

As stupid as not putting him in a cell on Death Row for the rest of his scheduled-to-end-soon life.
 
Back
Top