Federal Civil Rights Charges Unlikely Against Darren Wilson In Michael Brown Shooting

Not surprisingly, the Federal investigation of the Michael Brown shooting is ending much like the state investigation did.

Protests Continue In Missouri Town After Police Shooting Of 18-Yr-Old Man

Some two months after a state Grand Jury declined to indict him on any charges, it is now being reported that former Ferguson, Missouri Police Office Darren Wilson is unlikely to face Federal Civil Rights charges in connection with the shooting of Michael Brown:

WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his civil rights chief, Vanita Gupta, will have the final say on whether the Justice Department will close the case against the officer, Darren Wilson. But it would be unusual for them to overrule the prosecutors on the case, who are still working on a legal memo explaining their recommendation.

A decision by the Justice Department would bring an end to the politically charged investigation of Mr. Wilson in the death of 18-year-old Michael Brown. The Missouri authorities concluded their investigation into Mr. Brown’s death in November and also recommended against charges.

But a broader Justice Department civil rights investigation into allegations of discriminatory traffic stops and excessive force by the Ferguson Police Department remains open. That investigation could lead to significant changes at the department, which is overwhelmingly white despite serving a city that is mostly black.

Benjamin L. Crump, a lawyer for Mr. Brown’s family, said he did not want to comment on the investigation until the Justice Department made an official announcement.

“We’ve heard speculation on cases before that didn’t turn out to be true,” Mr. Crump said. “It’s too much to put the family through to respond to every rumor.”

Mr. Wilson’s lawyer did not return calls for comment.

While this is likely to disappoint the people who continue to stage protests in Ferguson and elsewhere around the country related to the failure to indict Wilson as well as the broader issue of police shootings and deaths by other means involving African-American males as exemplified by cases as Eric Garner in New York City and Tamir Rice in Clevelan d, the outcome of is hardly surprising. While Federal Prosecutors are not bound by the decision of the state Grand Jury, the fact that that body failed to return an indictment even after considering such a wide swath of evidence, nearly all of which has now been released to the public, makes it unlikely that there would be sufficient justification for Federal charges in the case.  The most important reason for this, of course, is that the standards for a Federal prosecution are far more narrow than possible under state law. While the circumstances under which the Brown shooting took place arguably could have led to charges for anything ranging from negligent homicide all the way up to murder, Federal law only allows prosecutors to pursue charges if it could be shown that there was evidence that Wilson acted with a racial motivation or some other intention to deny Brown his civil rights and that the killing was unjustified under the law. Proving the second element was made next to impossible with the release of the Grand Jury testimony and evidence, which at the very least would obviously provide sufficient evidence for the defense to establish reasonable doubt on the justification issue. As to the additional finding of an intent to violate Brown’s civil rights, and much like the George Zimmermann/Trayvon Martin case where the Federal Government apparently also has failed to find sufficient grounds for filing charges, it has been apparent for quite some time that there was no real evidence of a racial angle to the case notwithstanding the efforts of some to paint in in such a light. Weeks prior to the announcement from the St. Louis County Grand Jury, in fact, Federal officials were telling reporters that it was unlikely that Federal charges would be filed against Wilson and that much of the evidence that was being presented to the Grand Jury was consistent with the version of events that Officer Wilson had shared with investigators. Given all of this it really shouldn’t be a surprise that we’ve now reached the point where the Justice Department is apparently on the verge of announcing that its investigation of the matter is over, and that there will be no charges against Wilson. If there was insufficient evidence to sustain an indictment at the state level, and there clearly was, then it’s unlikely there would be sufficient evidence for an indictment at the Federal level.

The question, of course, is what happens going forward. When it comes, the announcement that there will not be a Federal indictment of Wilson is likely to lead to at least some escalation in the number and size of protests even if it is only temporary since it will essentially be the end of the road for efforts to hold Wilson responsible for what happened to Michael Brown. Yes, the Brown family can still pursue a civil case against Brown but those claims can only lead to an award of monetary damages that, in the end, they will be unlikely to be able to collect on beyond whatever the limits of the insurance policies that cover Ferguson and its Police Department might be. However, this isn’t exactly an unforeseeable outcome. Way back in August hen the first round of protests were happening, it was always possible that there would be no conviction or indictment in this case. Now that we’ve reached that point, protesters may just have to accept the outcome.

FILED UNDER: Crime, Law and the Courts, Race and Politics, US Politics,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020.

Comments

  1. Modulo Myself says:

    Considering that a member of the Grand Jury is suing the state to allow disclosure of the proceedings and McCullough has admitted that he allowed a witness who was both racist and not present to offer a story that supported Wilson’s version, this may be far from over for the public.

  2. michael reynolds says:

    The issue may live on but the case is over. Unless we are to believe that Eric Holder’s Justice Department deliberately threw this case, the obvious conclusion is that there is nothing left to be done.

  3. legion says:

    OK. How about charges for the prosecutor that suborned perjury & threw the case?

  4. Liberal Capitalist says:

    Huh… how bout that.

    I guess that black lives don’t matter, after all.

    Glad that’s settled, so we can go back to discussing underinflated sporting goods.

  5. Gustopher says:

    But a broader Justice Department civil rights investigation into allegations of discriminatory traffic stops and excessive force by the Ferguson Police Department remains open.

    This is the more significant bit. It is always going to be very hard to bring charges in an individual case, since there is a tendency to defer to the police interpretation of events, and the person killed is seldom a perfect angel, but the larger scale picture shows rampant discrimination and excessive force. And that is where the Federal government can be better involved — rewriting policies, demanding training, oversight and review.

    The local police and prosecutors muddied the waters enough that wouldn’t be able to hold officer Warren accountable if he did anything criminally wrong, but they can’t hide the big pattern.

    Also, the prosecutor needs to be prosecuted and/or disbarred for suborning perjury.

  6. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    How about perjury charges for Dorian Johnson, Brown’s partner in crime, who fabricated the whose “hand up/don’t shoot” myth and said Brown was shot in the back? Or, perhaps, felony homicide charges?

  7. Gustopher says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: If there is evidence that he lied under oath, and that evidence is presented to a grand jury run in he same manner as the grand jury for officer Warren, then sure, why not? No indictment can come out of that grand jury.

    Also, when the grand jury fails to indict, per design, would you be a dear and pick up the kid’s legal fees?

  8. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Gustopher: Right after you start a legal fund for ex-Officer Wilson, sweetie…

    Johnson’s lies were the basis of much of the rioting. And I know it must suck, knowing how much you invested into the myth he helped spin, but sooner or later you just gotta own up to having been wrong and stop demanding blood.

    Well, you don’t have to own up to it, but you really need to stop demanding blood in the name of your butthurt over having been so gullible.

    And ito steal a line I saw elsewhere, the evidence in favor of Wilson must have been overwhelming if Holder couldn’t rig up something to make him look guilty…

  9. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: Once again, we see you’re a troll.@Gustopher: Don’t feed the trolls.

  10. Eric Florack says:

    @michael reynolds: would you really put anything past eric holder?

  11. Gustopher says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: Unlike you, I don’t have any kind of great emotional investment in the specifics in Ferguson. Someone did something dumb around a poorly trained, poorly controlled cop who escalated the situation.

    There are problems. Some of them are in that individual instance, and some of them are in the police culture at large. Preventing another tragedy is more important than punishing anyone. Honestly, I would happily forgo efforts to punish the officer in favor of immunizing him and compelling testimony — and nailing his ass on perjury if we can prove he lied.

    And, I’ll believe the kid before I believe the officer, because everything that has happened after has been the officer, the police department and the prosecutors, and the state government behaving badly and lying on a regular basis. Given that the people who have been gaming the system every step of the way are also the ones who collected the evidence, I think my skepticism is warranted.

    And, there are already legal defense funds for the officer. The people very emotionally invested in ensuring that no one is ever punished for killing an unarmed black kid have seen to that. I assume you have donated.

  12. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Gustopher: Unlike you, I don’t have any kind of great emotional investment in the specifics in Ferguson.

    That’s obvious. For example, you seem to have no investment in the facts of the case, only how they serve your preferred narrative.

    Someone did something dumb around a poorly trained, poorly controlled cop who escalated the situation.

    No, a repeat criminal assaulted and attempted to kill a cop, and the cop reacted appropriately. Only someone who is both ignorant of the estaablished facts and with “no emotional investment” in finding out the facts before opining on the matter would dismiss that as “something stupid.”

    Here’s how I see how things played out, presented in a hopefully-entertaining faux dialogue:

    “There’s a real problem with police shooting unarmed black men in America!”

    “Really? Go on…”

    “Look at Ferguson. The guy was on his knees, his hands up, saying ‘don’t shoot!’ when the cop gunned him down.”

    “The cop says he was attacked, and the guy was charging him when he was shot.”

    “Of course the cop’s gonna say that. Cops lie!”

    “Um… that’s what the dead guy’s partner said, but none of the physical evidence supports any of that.”

    “It doesn’t matter! It’s a real problem, and we need to take it seriously! This cop must be punished! For Justice!”

    “Um… no. There may be a problem, but you don’t get to punish this cop for it, because he didn’t do anything wrong.”

    That’s where I disagree with you. I’m not arguing there’s a problem, I’m saying that your proposed solution sucks. You might be willing — if not eager — to exact some kind of penalty for the perceived sins of the many, but I look at the cop in this case and don’t see why he should be punished because of the sins committed by other cops who happen to look like him.

    Three cases spring to mind: the kid with the toy gun shot in the park, the guy with the toy gun shot in the Wal-Mart, and this one. Of these three cases to make the focus of the argument about how cops are unjustly shooting black people, why the hell focus on the case where the dead guy had tried to kill the cop in question?

    That’s not just wrong, it’s downright stupid.

  13. Barry says:

    Doug: “While Federal Prosecutors are not bound by the decision of the state Grand Jury, the fact that that body failed to return an indictment even after considering such a wide swath of evidence, nearly all of which has now been released to the public, makes it unlikely that there would be sufficient justification for Federal charges in the case. ”

    Grand juries are tools of the prosecutor, pure and simple (there was a fact tossed around that Federal grand juries return indictments in 99.99% of cases).

  14. Stonetools says:

    So another white cop gets away with murdering an unarmed black man….
    ’ Murica!

    The important thing here is that Ferguson has kicked off a debate on the phenomenon of police killing unarmed black men and repeatedly getting off scot free because local prosecutors connive with the police departments to protect them. The Justice Department can’t do anything about Wilson because of the law as currently written and interpreted, but new laws can be written to deal with future cases. That’s what the protesters can push for -a new Civilian Rights Act to protect us all from abusive, murdering police.
    In the meantime, the DOJ can sue the Ferguson Police Department and reform it into being an actual police department instead of being an occupying army that hires trigger happy refugees from failed police departments
    As for Wilson… Guess he’s living proof we live in an unjust world. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong about that. We will see.

  15. Pinky says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: Yes. The most dangerous thing in the world is someone who’s not concerned about the facts, but is emotionally invested in the story line.

  16. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Stonetools: You know, Stoney, “murder” actually has a very specific and precise meaning. You might want to look it up.

    And if you do, you might find out that it applies to what Brown tried to do to Wilson, not what Wilson did to Brown.

    If that harshes your mellow and blows your narrative… well, reality sucks sometimes. Grow up a little and learn that.

  17. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Pinky: “Fake but accurate” uber alles, huh?

  18. Pinky says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: Funny you’d say “uber alles”, because that’s exactly what this reminded me of: Nazi propaganda. Everything has to be viewed through race, and if the facts of the story don’t fit the desired narrative, they’ll have to be altered. The Uberman is above things like facts.

    Gustopher asserts both his skepticism and his belief. That reminds me of what Hannah Arendt wrote about the necessary environment for totalitarianism: that there has to be a blend of sophisticated skepticism and blind gullibility.

  19. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Pinky: I didn’t want to go full Godwin, but there are parallels, aren’t there?

    Note the only significant factors Gus and Stoney cite: the races of the two parties. Not a word about the actions of either, just their race. The argument seems to be that we should be judging this matter on the color of their skin, not the content of their character.

  20. Pinky says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: Yup. Facts and actions are specifics. They’re hard to determine. Race is easy and visible, and it’s all that matters.

  21. stonetools says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    You support your narrative, I’ll support mine. I really don’t give a d@mn what you believe, since you were never going to believe the black victim over the white cop, no matter what the evidence was. What’s clear is that the grand jury in this case was manipulated to get the result the pro police prosecutor wanted. You don’t know the law, so you don’t understand ( or want to understand) that the prosecutor rigged the game and fixed the result.
    It really doesn’t matter the evidence is, the result is always the same-the cops walk, whether there is video evidence, the victim is 12 years old, or the victim is holding up a toy in a store. If the victim is black, the cop walks. That’s the Pattern. The Michael Brown shooting is simply part of the pattern. The only difference is that the Ferguson community did not meekly succumb but decided to speak out and protest.

    Now of course conservatives like you are butt hurt about that, and as usual you always reserve your condemnation for the victim and the protesting community, never for the shooter or his protectors. The tune is always the same too. Why can’t these people just shut up or at least be quieter? Why couldn’t they have chosen a different case and a more perfect victim? Why couldn’t they have gone through the channels? Why couldn’t they wait? Of course blacks have been hearing this spiel since 1865.It’s always the wrong time and the wrong place for blacks to protest their grievances. Funny that.

  22. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @stonetools: You support your narrative, I’ll support mine. I really don’t give a d@mn what you believe, since you were never going to believe the black victim over the white cop, no matter what the evidence was.

    Oddly enough, I can (and have) cited plenty of evidence. You keep harping the same points over and over: the races of the parties.

    What’s clear is that the grand jury in this case was manipulated to get the result the pro police prosecutor wanted. You don’t know the law, so you don’t understand ( or want to understand) that the prosecutor rigged the game and fixed the result.

    I know that the prosecutor faced condemnation and more riots unless he came back with a death penalty case against the cop. I know the prosecutor put EVERYTHING into the record, so he couldn’t be accused of withholding evidence.

    It really doesn’t matter the evidence is, the result is always the same-the cops walk, whether there is video evidence, the victim is 12 years old, or the victim is holding up a toy in a store. If the victim is black, the cop walks.

    And you are arguing that the evidence is irrelevant; once you know the races of the parties involved.

    You want to argue big issues? Other cases? Trends? Fine. But you don’t get to do it by faking a case. If it’s as predominant a matter as you argue, then why pick such a bad example? Hell, I cited two other cases where you could make your stand on. I’ll even back you on those. And as far as your absolute assertion of “the result is always the same,” that’s just hyperbolic bullshit. Here’s a pretty recent example of a cop shooting an unarmed black man and getting fired for it, then arrested.

    Does what you assert happen? Of course it does. I’ve now cited three examples in this very thread. But it didn’t happen in Ferguson. And people like you who keep insisting it did are putting your agenda ahead of the truth — doing your cause, your side, and your self no credit whatsoever.

  23. stonetools says:

    @Pinky:

    So let me understand you. The Ferguson protesters are somehow Nazis? Lord have mercy, you right wingers will twist history like a pretzel to be seen as victims, eh? I guess we should be feel sorry for all those unjustly persecuted police officers who got off scot free after killing those unarmed civilians? Why , they are being treated exactly like Auschwitz inmates, isn’t that obvious?
    I guess we should ignore the inconvenient fact that virtually all the police officers are white and all the victims are minorities.
    As for the Michael Brown case, what I and the Ferguson protestors object to is precisely that we did not get a public trial, in which we saw ALL the evidence and in which all witnesses not only testified, but were cross examined in open court, according to the law and presided over by a judge. Instead, we got a Star Chamber proceeding in which the prosecutor who is known to be partial to the police presented the evidence in a way to achieve a pre determined result. THAT is the issue, not whether Michael Brown was baby Jesus pure.

  24. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @stonetools: As for the Michael Brown case, what I and the Ferguson protestors object to is precisely that we did not get a public trial, in which we saw ALL the evidence and in which all witnesses not only testified, but were cross examined in open court, according to the law and presided over by a judge.

    Too bad that the prosecutor has a moral and legal obligation to NOT bring a case that he believes he can not win. That’s the actual law in Missouri.

    And it’s a good one.

  25. stonetools says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    I know the prosecutor put EVERYTHING into the record, so he couldn’t be accused of withholding evidence.

    Since grand jury proceedings are secret, I have to ask, How do you know that? Of course, you don’t know.You are taking the prosecutor’s word for it.
    If that there had been a public trial, we would know what was presented and how.
    But hey, you like the result, so that ends the inquiry, doesn’t it? Officer Saint Darren Wilson lives to shoot another victim another day. Better take care he doesn’t shoot someone of the “wrong” color next time.

  26. stonetools says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Well, it’s more like he decided not to bring a case he did not WANT to win. There’s a difference.As we have found out, local prosecutors don’t WANT to prosecute local police officers. And this is a local prosecutor famous for NEVER indicting police officers accused of unjustifiably shooting civilians. He has NEVER done so in the 20 years he has been a prosecutor, despite several opportunities to do so. It seems relevant as well that he wanted to be a police officer and that his father was a police officer who was killed by a black man.
    Bottom line, he should never have been allowed to prosecute this case. He should have recused himself and an independent prosecutor should have been brought in.My take away from the whole sorry experience is that whether justice was done or not ( i would say no), it was certainly not SEEN to be done. There should be law requiring the appointment of an independent prosecutor whenever there is a police shooting. That won’t produce nirvana, but at least that would be a start. My criticism of the Ferguson protestors is not that they are wrong to protest, but that they aren’t protesting with an end in mind- corrective legislation. They need to take that next step.

  27. stonetools says:

    Actually, I’m wrong about that last. The protestors do have a list of demands. Its my fault for going along with the MSM narrative on the movement.

    See here.

  28. Pinky says:

    @stonetools:

    So let me understand you. The Ferguson protesters are somehow Nazis?

    That’s not even close to what I said. Come on.

  29. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @stonetools: The protestors do have a list of demands. Its my fault for going along with the MSM narrative on the movement.

    Now for the 64-thousand-dollar question: have you actually read them?

    #1 is a complete non-starter, obviously written by an idiot.

    #2 calls for establishing a whole separate judicial system, unaccountable to any elected officials, with no discussion of who will establish it or how it will be held accountable.

    #3 has a couple of feasible ideas in A and C, but show an appalling ignorance of the 10th Amendment and other fundamental principles. B should be called the “Lynch Mob Empowerment clause.”

    That’s as far as I’m going, because some idiot uploaded it SIDEWAYS, and the last thing I need now besides the figurative pain in my neck is a literal one. But I will skim to see if there’s an “amnesty for looters” provision, there has to be.

    Yup, #6. Too damned predictable.

  30. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @stonetools: Well, it’s more like he decided not to bring a case he did not WANT to win. There’s a difference.

    Especially when we have aces like you who can read his mind and spot a RAAAAACIST from halfway across the country (or wherever the hell you are).

    And I do have to ask you one personal question: are you willing to admit that Dorian Johnson’s account was a total myth and a self-serving lie? That was the story, by the way, that fueled much of the initial outrage — the shot in the back, the “hands up don’t shoot,” the “Wilson grabbed Brown and tried to drag him into the cruiser” fantasy, and all that.

  31. humanoid.panda says:

    Anybody has any idea why it’s the gun hating liberals and not the NRA, the body so valiantly fighting to correct anti-gun stereotypes spread by the liberals that spotlighthing stories like this?
    Race can’t be it, because the NRA are color blind.
    http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2015/01/black-man-gun-permit-walmart-florida-vigilante

  32. stonetools says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Well, since I’m not a mind reader, I don’t know (unlike you) what Johnson was thinking. But as someone who has been a prosecutor and a defense attorney, I can claim insight into the system that you clearly don’t have-and the reality is that a prosecutor can generally convince a grand jury to indict anytime he wants to ( “a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich”, etc). A lot of attorneys have looked at this case and concluded that indeed an indictment could have been brought, if the prosecutor had wanted to.My conclusion is that McCullogh didn’t want to indict, and indeed many who knew him predicted that he wouldn’t indict, no matter what.
    You are fixated on one witness. They are many states witnesses who testified that Michael Brown indeed had his hands up when fired upon (16 of them, in fact). Here’s a handy chart summarizing the witness testimony. Any one of the 16 could have provided the basis for an indictment.
    You also seem to be laboring under the delusion that if ONE states’ witness testimony is suspect, the entire case is suspect. Wrong. Prosecutors indict all the time in cases where they ca’t vouch for the entire testimony of every witness.
    Inconsistencies between witnesses is also not a reason to indict. Prosecutors try (and win) cases all the time where there are inconsistencies in witness testimony.
    In all, I don’t have to be a mind reader to conclude McCullogh didn’t want to indict. I just have to look at what happened and rely on my expertise and the expertise of the many attorneys who looked at the case.

  33. Grewgills says:

    @Pinky:
    So, who are the nazis in your mind in this analogy constructed by you and jenos? Apparently they aren’t the ones who kill minorities with state sanction, so I’m curious which of the remaining groups you see as most like nazis.

  34. stonetools says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    The protesters aren’t lawyers or politicians. It’s pretty clear that they have to refine and restate their list of demands. It’s early days yet. They will get better and more articulate, just like the Civil Rights movement got better and more articulate, between the time of the Montgomery bus boycott in 1956 and the March on Washington in 1963.

  35. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @stonetools: Interesting chart. And one that’s been thoroughly shredded — see this annotated version.

    As for the “ham sandwich” bit, we have one fact: the prosecutor quite possibly could have gotten an indictment. There certainly was some eyewitness testimony that would have supported it.

    On the other hand, the statements that would have supported it were severely discredited by the physical evidence.

    So the prosecutor didn’t do everything he could to get an indictment. You make the jump that he threw the case because he’s buddy-buddy with cops. I point out Missouri law:

    Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

    The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

    (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

    That’s the FIRST rule for prosecutors. That usually makes it the most important one.

  36. stonetools says:

    And as you have admitted, there was evidence for an indictment ( that’s what probable cause IS.Its a much lower standard than beyond reasonable doubt).
    You also admit he’s buddy/buddy with the police. Draw the obvious conclusion.

    Anyway, the DOJ is on the job. I hope they’ll reform the prosecutor’s office and the police department . More is needed, though-legislative action to make the police accountable nationwide. The protest movement can serve the function of keeping the issue on the front burner until the legislators act.

  37. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @stonetools: And as you have admitted, there was evidence for an indictment ( that’s what probable cause IS.Its a much lower standard than beyond reasonable doubt).
    You also admit he’s buddy/buddy with the police. Draw the obvious conclusion.

    Yes, there was evidence that supported an indictment. I even spelled it out — the witness testimony, summed up in the chart you linked.

    But to repeat, the physical evidence not only didn’t support it, but contradicted most of it.

    And no, I didn’t admit he was buddy-buddy with the cops. I simply paraphrased your argument.

    Finally, if you look at the actual topic of the article, the DOJ has said that it won’t prosecute Wilson. I would call that “on the job,” but I doubt it’s what you mean.

    But after this discussion, I have to cite the one most disturbing, terrifying thing you’ve said so far:

    But as someone who has been a prosecutor and a defense attorney…

    If this is a representative sampling of your thinking and arguing, I’m going to take a little comfort in the “has been” part. The past tense gives me some slight reassurance.

  38. stonetools says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    (Shrug)

    I’m OK with my record as to both. Just “respect my authoritah” and those of many attorneys who point out that there was indeed enough evidence to indict, which is the point. Whether there was enough to convict is a matter for the petit jury to sort out at trial, after a vigorous prosecution (which there certainly was not in this case).
    As to whether he was buddy buddy with the cops, there was and is overwhelming evidence of this. I believe he himself says he is pro police.
    I believe the DOJ indeed made the correct call about a civil rights law indictment. It’s work however is not finished(much as you would like to believe that it is) and we will be seeing more from them on Ferguson and elsewhere soon.

  39. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @stonetools: Just “respect my authoritah” and those of many attorneys who point out that there was indeed enough evidence to indict, which is the point.

    No, I don’t think so. I tend to not defer to assertions of authority by anonymous commenters. Make the argument that can stand on its own, or don’t bother trying.

    The evidence for an indictment would suffice for an unethical prosecutor. Boy, doesn’t it suck that the prosecutor in this case was ethical enough that he actually abided by Missouri’s Code of Ethics?

  40. Stonetools says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Or maybe he was a racist, pro police prosecutor who covered for a cop who unjustifiably shot a teenager who didnt deserve to be shot down in the street like a dog for conduct that was deserving of at worst an arrest for assaulting a police officer. The facts fit that interpretation too.

    I can see as a conservative white man who is never going to have to worry about being shot down by a racist cop why you prefer your narrative. Look we will just agree to disagree on this. Thanks for the dialogue, such as it was.

  41. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: “Boy, doesn’t it suck that the prosecutor in this case was ethical enough that he actually abided by Missouri’s Code of Ethics?”

    Since you’re an expert on the subject, could you point out the section of Missour’s Code of Ethics where it encourages prosecutors to suborn perjury? Because this one called a witness knowing she would lie on the stand, and then did not contradict her testimony or inform the grand jurors that he knew for a fact she was lying.

    Yup, that’s Missouri ethics for you.

  42. bill says:

    that there’s still some idiots out the blocking traffic and making assholes of themselves even after the facts came out and such….just awesome- you really can’t fix stupid i guess.
    that there’s still some of you that can’t put 2+2 together makes me weary of this site and its collective iq.

  43. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Stonetools: Or maybe he was a racist, pro police prosecutor who covered for a cop who unjustifiably shot a teenager who didnt deserve to be shot down in the street like a dog for conduct that was deserving of at worst an arrest for assaulting a police officer. The facts fit that interpretation too.

    (shrug) Also a possibility. What do you have to support it, besides your own racist fantasies? The physical evidence supports Wilson’s account quite well — including Brown’s blood being in the cruiser and on Wilson’s gun.

    And are you really arguing that punching a cop and wrestling with him for his gun, to the point where the gun goes off, is “at worst an arrest for assaulting a police officer?” Even an incredibly incompetent prosecutor could make that an attempted murder case. You’re making me doubt your claim to have been a prosecutor.

    Not that I put much weight in that, but I’ve gone from “not caring” to “oh, BS” about it.

  44. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @wr: Sod off, Swampy. Before I ask you why you aren’t demanding perjury charges against Dorian Johnson,whose lies (repeated under oath) were the basis for most of the myths about this case.

  45. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @wr: Oh, what the hell. It’s just too easy.

    Since you’re an expert on the subject, could you point out the section of Missour’s Code of Ethics where it encourages prosecutors to suborn perjury? Because this one called a witness knowing she would lie on the stand, and then did not contradict her testimony or inform the grand jurors that he knew for a fact she was lying.

    Suborn: 1: to induce secretly to do an unlawful thing
    2: to induce to commit perjury; also : to obtain (perjured testimony) from a witness

    So, the prosecutor actually induced the witness to lie? By your own account, he merely allowed it. And the statute of limitations on perjury is still ticking…

  46. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: Yes, little Jenos, asking a witness to testify knowing that she is going to lie is suborning perjury. As in: to obtain perjured testimony from a witness. As you just posted.

    Don’t you even read the crap you cut and paste?

  47. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: “Before I ask you why you aren’t demanding perjury charges against Dorian Johnson,whose lies (repeated under oath) were the basis for most of the myths about this case.”

    I have no evidence that he lied, other than your own racist rantings. But the prosecutor has admitted that this woman lied on the stand, that he knew she was going to lie before he put her on the stand, and that he allowed her to lie on the stand.

  48. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @wr: This is almost like clubbing a baby seal. But in this case, the baby seal is begging for it.

    (cracks knuckle)

    You see, “suborn” and “induce” both infer an element of control or, at least, influence by the actor upon the subject. It is an active verb. By using the term, you are declaring that the prosecutor in some way acted that increased the odds that the witness would lie. But by your own admission (which I’m not willing to accept outright, but for the sake of argument only), the prosecutor simply put the witness on the stand knowing that the witness may lie.

    By your definition, I “suborned” your response. When I pointed out your error, I knew that you had a variety of responses available to you. You could admit the error (to various degrees of graciousness), you could ignore it, you could run away from the argument, or you could double down on stupid and insist that your definition of the word was definitive and argue your flawed point in the most personally insulting fashion you could manage.

    Now, based on our prior engagements, I knew the last was the most likely outcome. Only once have you ever acknowledged and of your prior idiocies, and in that case only because numerous others called you out on it. Even then you wrapped your “apology” in more insults. You wouldn’t run away or ignore it, so the only plausible solution is for you to argue for your own wrong definition.

    So, by your own definition, I successfully “suborned” or “induced” you to keep arguing for your flawed definition. Do you want to acknowledge how easily I manipulated you into that, or do you want to admit that your grasp of the word was flawed?

    Oh, and Dorian Johnson’s testimony was refuted by those most racist of rantings, the physical evidence in the case. According to Johnson, Brown was shot in the back while fleeing, then shot in the chest, and the final shots at point-blank range. NONE of that is in any way consistent with the autopsy.

    Johnson also said that Wilson, while sitting in the cruiser, grabbed Brown by the throat and dragged him, head-first, into the cruiser, and that’s how the struggle for the gun began. This one, obviously, defies anything resembling logic.Wilson would have to be an idiot of the magnitude of… welll, you to attempt such a move on someone of Brown’s size and stature. Grappling with someone bigger than yourself while seated (and, possibly, restrained) in a vehicle? You have no flexibility, no leverage, and you’re bringing a larger opponent into range of grabbing at your weapons — which Brown did, by the way.

    Also, Brown, at almost 300 libs, had a thick neck. Wilson would have to turn in his seat and thrust both hands out the window to grab Brown with enough grip to physically force him in through the window.

    Here, let me put it in simpler terms: Wilson isn’t Darth Vader, and Brown wasn’t Captain Antilles.

    Now, please show how I’ve “suborned” you to keep doubling down on stupid…

  49. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    For my next trick, shall I prove how “someone who has been a prosecutor and a defense attorney” has no effing clue what the word “murder” actually means?

  50. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: The prosecutor put a witness on the stand knowing she was lying. When she repeated her lie on the stand, he said nothing about it.

    When a lawyer knowingly asks for and accepts perjured testimony, that is suborning perjury.

    Once again you know nothing about anything, and boast about it.

  51. anjin-san says:

    Well, we know Wilson is a proven liar who has lied on police reports.

    Not a very good baseline for those who support him.

  52. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    I’m curious, what training and experience do you have in hand to hand combat, street fighting, and misc. violent confrontations?

    None? Zero? Nada? Zilch?

    That’s what I thought.

  53. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @wr: The prosecutor put a witness on the stand knowing she was lying. When she repeated her lie on the stand, he said nothing about it.

    You do realize, Swampy, you have yet to 1) say who this mysterious female witness was, 2) what she said was a lie, and 3) how the prosecutor knew (not suspected, not believed, but knew as a certainty) that she would lie?

    Oh, I’ve done a little homework, and I have a pretty good idea of what you’re babbling about, but it’s your “argument” to make, not mine. I’m morbidly curious to see just how much you cut and paste, and from where.

    On the other hand, I’ve named a witness whose testimony was completely inconsistent with the physical evidence — as in, he was clearly lying. And why he lied is blatantly obvious. Why aren’t you so outraged about that?

    Could it be because his lies serve your side of the argument? That his lies were the basis for most of the outrage over the case, and if you acknowledge his lies, you have to admit that pretty much all of your RIGHTEOUS OUTRAGE was totally unjustified, and — once again — you’re on the wrong side and can’t bring yourself to admit it?

    Hey, look, I’m suborning you to say even more stupid things! Dance, little puppet!

  54. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: I don’t need to cite my credentials. I don’t play those games. For one, it makes one exceptionally vulnerable should one then say something incredibly stupid later — like stoney talking about being both a prosecutor and defender, but clearly has no idea about the actual meaning of “murder.”

    For another, I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I don’t need any more qualifications.

    For a third, if you had the testicular fortitude, you’d openly challenge my assertions about that confrontation, instead of bypassing what I said to go after me personally. But then, that is one of your go-to tactics — you religiously avoid any real substance, right?

  55. Grewgills says:

    Under federal Criminal Law (18 U.S.C.A. § 1622), five elements must be proved to convict a person of subornation of perjury. It first must be shown that the defendant made an agreement with a person to testify falsely. There must be proof that perjury has in fact been committed and that the statements of the perjurer were material. The prosecutor must also provide evidence that the perjurer made such statements willfully with knowledge of their falsity. Finally, there must be proof that the procurer had knowledge that the perjurer’s statements were false.

    Element one was met when Wilson arranged for her to testify knowing she planned to lie under oath. Elements two through four have not been disputed. That leaves it pretty clear that Wilson suborned perjury in the grand jury proceedings. He should be indicted and probably disbarred.

  56. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    I don’t need to cite my credentials.

    Well of course not, since your “credentials” consist of repeating things you read on the internet.

    testicular fortitude

    You keep repeating this. Are you under the impression that you are a guy who “has balls”? Interesting, because you reek of someone who would never talk any trash to another guy in the real world & is engaged in heavy overcompensation on the internet.

  57. anjin-san says:

    This case has interesting parallels with the Trayvon Martin shooting. The one that really jumps out is that, with one party dead, events are largely framed by the party doing the shooting.

    So is Wilson an honest man?

    Wilson claimed that Brown punched him in the face twice, with such terrific force that he thought another punch might kill him.

    “I felt that another of those punches in my face could knock me out or worse … I’ve already taken two to the face and I didn’t think I would, the third one could be fatal if he hit me right.”

    Well, we know Brown was a huge guy, so it’s not difficult to imagine being hit in the face by him might inflict massive damage. So let’s look at a photo of Wilson taken in the hospital after the incident and look at just how badly Wilson was injured in the near fatal beating he says he took.

    Now it may just be me, but he looks like he might have been wrestling with a puppy. Having his face beaten in? Not so much. Where is the evidence of a beating that endangered his life? The titanic, life-threatening blows Brown inflicted on him?

    Well, it’s nowhere. It does not exist.

    Sorry, Wilson is liar.

  58. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Grewgills: It first must be shown that the defendant made an agreement with a person to testify falsely.

    You got anything — anything at all — that proves the emphasized words? That the prosecutor had an agreement with Ms. X, and that agreement required her to lie?

    Again, there’s a hell of a lot stronger case for both “perjury” and “suborning perjury” with Johnson than with Ms X.

  59. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: I said that you would refuse to actually discuss the points I made, and would instead focus exclusively on attacking me. And thank you for proving me correct.

    Aren’t there some kind of rules around here that cover people who engage in ad hominem attacks exclusively, to the complete omission of the actual topics at hand?

    Never mind; those rules are enforced most rarely and selectively.

  60. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Why would I wish to engage you on your defense of Wilson? The man is a proven liar. Clearly, that does not bother you – no surprise given you long, arduous defense of George Zimmermann, another case where you bone-headedly ignored the body of evidence showing a lack of character on the part of the shooter.

    Really Jenos, if I want to debate this, I will head to the websites where the people you are parroting hang out.

  61. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: You have a remarkable fixation on “character.” It’s so overwhelming that it trumps any actual consideration of facts — you base your entire determination on issues based on “X is a bad person, so they’re guilty.”

    And you extend it to people here, too. Tell you what, annie — you don’t want to engage me on issues and facts, and I have less than zero interest in engaging you on judging people’s characters. So why don’t you just ignore me entirely?

  62. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: Why would I wish to engage you on your defense of Wilson?

    I’m not defending Wilson. You’re attacking Wilson, I’m arguing the facts of the case. Give it a try some time. It’s a bit more work, but you wouldn’t want to look lazy on top of all your other flaws, would you?

  63. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: Sorry, Wilson is liar.

    Bill Clinton is a liar.

    Hillary Clinton is a liar.

    Barack Obama is a liar.

    Elizabeth Warren is a liar.

    Dorian Johnson is a liar.

    Why don’t they get the same condemnation from you?

    I bet it’s because you’re a hypocrite.

  64. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    I’m arguing the facts of the case.

    Well, it’s a fact that Wilson testified to the grand jury that Brown beat his face so terribly that he thought one more punch could kill him. It’s a fact that photos taken of Wilson in the hospital shortly after the incident show no evidence of such a beating. When one is testifying under oath, character and truthfulness are actually pretty relevant. If one is a police officer, acting under cloak of authority, armed with weapons and the force of law, character is actually important.

    If you are interesting in discussing “the facts of the case”, why are you running from this rather important aspect of the case?

    It’s no coincidence that the prosecutor made certain Wilson would never have to testify under cross in open court (something that is rather a cornerstone of our legal system). Instead, he was allowed to simply take the stand, give his version of events, and sit back down – in a proceeding not open to the pubic that Wilson was supposedly serving as a police officer.

    Now you can respond to my on topic comment, or you can whine about how the OTB staff is unfair to you. Oh, you have another option. You could also whine that I am never on topic, and never say anything of substance. If you say that a thousand times I think you get a lollypop.

  65. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: “You do realize, Swampy, you have yet to 1) say who this mysterious female witness was, 2) what she said was a lie, and 3) how the prosecutor knew (not suspected, not believed, but knew as a certainty) that she would lie?”

    Snore. You know exactly what I’m talking about. This isn’t a high school debating class, and I don’t plan to bore myself and everyone here establishing what everyone knows or can quickly Google. If you want to reduce this down to semantics — well, that’s really your sole mode of argumentation, just as it is with a 14 year old boy who fancies himself intelligent.

    You seem to think you win something by acting like a jerk. Damned if I know that is. I guess if I had no victories in life I might cherish semantic games with total strangers who despise me.

    No, not a chance. I could find satisfaction is picking up litter before I’d find it in what you do.

  66. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: Well, it’s a fact that Wilson testified to the grand jury that Brown beat his face so terribly that he thought one more punch could kill him. It’s a fact that photos taken of Wilson in the hospital shortly after the incident show no evidence of such a beating.

    Oh, wow, actual facts! Let’s actually look at what Wilson said.

    Q And it was your opinion that you needed to pull out your weapon because you did feel that way, I don’t want to put words in your mouth?

    AI felt that another one of those punches in my face could knock me out or worse. I mean it was, he’s obviously bigger than I was and stronger and the, I’ve already taken two to the face I didn’t think I would, the third one could be fatal if he hit me right.

    Q You thought he could hit you and it would be a fatal injury?

    A Or at least unconscious and then who knows what would happen to me after that.

    He wasn’t asked for a medical opinion, but his own opinions and recollections and thoughts at the time.

    That’s from pages 216 and 217 of the transcript. Or is there some other citation you had in mind?

    BTW, thanks for actually addressing a fact of the case. Next time, though, I won’t do your homework for you — come up with your own quotations and citations, please.

  67. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @wr: Snore. You know exactly what I’m talking about.

    Oh, there’s another word you use without understanding — “know.” No, I don’t “know” what you’re talking about. I strongly suspect it, but since you won’t confirm it, I’d rather not make any assumptions. You want me to make assumptions, but I’m not going to do that. I burned out on that when I kept assuming that when anjin kept being disagreeable and assumed that meant he disagreed with me, when he was actually tap-dancing in his inimitable and exquisite fashion to actually avoid saying his actual opinions.

    So you don’t want to make actual arguments, where you actually say things of substance and provide links and give quotes?

    Quelle surprise. Color me gobsmacked.

  68. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Or is there some other citation you had in mind?

    No, that’s the one I had in mind. I already cited it on this thread 🙂

    Wilson’s “opinions and recollections” were that he had been hit twice in the face with such force that he thought another blow might kill him. I already covered that in this thread as well.

    Next time, though, I won’t do your homework for you — come up with your own quotations and citations, please.

    I refer you to:

    @anjin-san:

    As you can see, you are simply retreading ground I already covered. What exactly are you congratulating yourself for?

    So, in spite all you your flailing. the fact remains that Wilson stated in his sworn testimony that he suffered a beating that he feared could be fatal. Yet there is no evidence that he actually took such a beating. Please refer to the photos I cited that you conveniently ignored. I also note that a law enforcement professional such as a police officer should have the ability to reasonably evaluate if their life is actually in danger or not.

  69. anjin-san says:

    @ wr

    say things of substance

    Did you know that Mitt Romney once saved a drowning man? That Treyvon Martin had a “thug life” Facebook page?

    Dude, try to say something of substance.

  70. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: News flash, annie: a single blow to the head can be fatal. Or it can render someone unconscious. If someone has already punched me in the head twice, there’s no guarantee that the next one won’t achieve one of those results.

    And it’s most often a safe assumption that that is the goal of the person doing the punching. Maybe you’re dumb enough to think someone would actually believe “I’m going to punch this cop in the head a few times, but I really hope I don’t knock him out or kill him. I just want to leave him with a few minor contusions.”

    What you’re doing is projecting hindsight on to the matter. No great surprise; you spend so much time with your head up your ass and talking out your ass, it must be second nature.

  71. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: Did you notice that we aren’t talking about Mitt Romney or Trayvon Martin here?

    You really are a one-trick pony. Your only move is to attack the character of people you don’t like. It’s not only your go-to move, it’s your only move.

  72. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    News flash, annie: a single blow to the head can be fatal. Or it can render someone unconscious.

    Umm. Here’s a news flash. Such blows actually damage the party being struck. Lacerations, contusions, hematoma. People who are the victims of such blows are not unmarked, as Wilson was.

  73. anjin-san says:

    @anjin-san:

    Did you notice that we aren’t talking about Mitt Romney or Trayvon Martin here?

    Really? Are we talking about Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama. or Elizabeth Warren, people you mentioned earlier in our conversation?

    For a guy who fancies himself as being rather clever, you can’t even keep your BS consistent across a single thread.

  74. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: You’re right; I apologize. I shouldn’t let your refusal to address the topic sway me to go haring off on your diversions.

    I won’t say it won’t happen again, because you’re really good at it, but I will try to resist it.

  75. anjin-san says:

    @ Jenos

    Since you are a man of substance, I will give you another chance.

    Here are the photos of Wilson

    Please point out the injuries that give evidence of a beating that a law enfacement professional might think was putting him in danger of imminent death. I will stand by.

    Hell, show the injures that might show Wilson had been in any kind of a fight with anyone, much less a life and death battle with a guy who weighed 300 pounds.

  76. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: Umm. Here’s a news flash. Such blows actually damage the party being struck. Lacerations, contusions, hematoma. People who are the victims of such blows are not unmarked, as Wilson was.

    So, I guess these photos don’t show a contusion?

    “Unmarked?” Oh, look, you just told a LIE!

    I await your condemnation of yourself. But I ain’t holding my breath.

  77. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    So, I guess these photos don’t show a contusion?

    Those photos suggest that he might have been slapped by a little girl. They are hardly evidence of a beating that put his life in danger.

    Seriously dude, don’t talk about fighting like you have a clue of a clue of a clue. It’s embarrassing for the whole fricking blog.

  78. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: You said “unmarked.”

    He was clearly marked.

    Shut up, lying liar.

  79. anjin-san says:
  80. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: Little boy, I realize you live off the life-energy you suck from people by annoying them, but I’m done with you. I was perfectly happy to ignore you for a couple of months until you descended into such loathesomness that I let myself swat you. But you like being swatted — it’s all you live for. And I’m sick of feeding this particular troll.

    And mostly, I’m bored.

    You bore me. Enagaging you bores me. Because you don’t have a thought other than “what can I say to annoy?”

    But who knows, maybe in a couple of months you’ll get really lonesome and start posting messages about how all blacks deserve to be murdered by whites, and I’ll slip up and respond. So you can live in hope. I can’t imagine you have anything else.

    Oh, except the obligatory “hee hee I won because I’m so smart” message.” I’ll have to assume you’ll write that, since I won’t be reading anything under this name… or any others that are so clearly you.

  81. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: Nobody put the word “unmarked” in your mouth, liar. You said it, just own it.

    And since you’re so interested in images of beating victims, here’s some more.

  82. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @wr: Little boy, I realize you live off the life-energy you suck from people by annoying them, but I’m done with you.

    You just can’t quit me, Swampy. Own it.

    And why don’t you give us some more lectures on what “suborning” means? That one is still a riot.

    But who knows, maybe in a couple of months you’ll get really lonesome and start posting messages about how all blacks deserve to be murdered by whites, and I’ll slip up and respond. So you can live in hope. I can’t imagine you have anything else.

    That may happen. But it won’t be me saying it. That’s your own limited brain projecting. After all, I’m the one who pointed out three other cases of blacks being unjustly shot by cops in this very thread.

    And here’s another example — a law-abiding black man being assaulted by a white man. Here’s hoping the cops throw the book at the racist.

  83. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    Now that the idiots have flounced off with their tails between their legs, anyone want to have a SERIOUS discussion on the matter?

  84. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @wr: Oh, except the obligatory “hee hee I won because I’m so smart” message.” I’ll have to assume you’ll write that, since I won’t be reading anything under this name… or any others that are so clearly you.

    Be careful there, Swampy… I’m everywhere. I’m everybody. I’m everything.

  85. anjin-san says:

    Oh look. It’s Jenos, alone in a room, congratulating himself on imaginary victories.

    Kinda like his real life, one would think…

  86. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: Yeah, it was kind of a small victory. Busted you as a liar, exposed wr as incredibly stupid… not much of a challege.

    The only part that was really enjoyable was “suborning” Stoney into bragging about his extensive experience as both a prosecutor and a defender after he demonstrated that he had NO idea what the actual definition of “murder” was. It’s hard to decide if he was lying about it, was just really, really, really bad at those jobs, or has forgotten almost everything he knew when he held those jobs.

    It’s a shame that you buffoons ruined what could have been a substantive discussion, though…

  87. al-Ameda says:

    Well, we’ve gone through a grand jury process in Missouri, a federal examination of the situation, and about all that’s left is for the news outlets to get George Zimmerman to weigh in on this.

  88. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @al-Ameda: Well, we’ve gone through a grand jury process in Missouri, a federal examination of the situation, and about all that’s left is for the news outlets to get George Zimmerman to weigh in on this.

    My hunch is, “it’s bad news when someone without a gun attacks someone who has a gun. Just plain bad news all around.”

  89. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    My hunch is, “it’s bad news when someone without a gun attacks someone who has a gun. Just plain bad news all around.”

    Exactly, Zimmerman was very fortunate that there were no witnesses to his shooting of an unarmed person.

  90. anjin-san says:

    Zimmermann is pretty busy with his new hobby of assaulting women. I’m not sure if he has time to take questions about anything else.

  91. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: You guys got the crush on him. Why don’t you just ask him?

    And three down-twinkles for saying it’s a bad idea for unarmed people to attack people with guns? Are some folks actually saying it’s a good idea?

  92. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    And three down-twinkles for saying it’s a bad idea for unarmed people to attack people with guns? Are some folks actually saying it’s a good idea?

    I suspect the “down-twinkles” reflect the fact that some people infer from that notion that the unarmed victims might be considered to be at fault for letting a guy like Zimmerman shoot them? Me? If I accept the idea that Martin was ill-advised (especially in Florida) to “attack” an armed cop-wannabee like Zimmerman who was stalking Martin for no discernible reason, then I also think it’s a good idea, if you’re going to shoot that unarmed person, to have no witnesses to the shooting. It makes for a faster and simplified judicial proceeding.

  93. anjin-san says:

    @al-Ameda:

    And there is the fact that the conclusion drawn by many a long time ago – that Zimmermann is an unstable personality with violent tendencies – has been proven to be correct by events subsequent to his shooting Martin dead. Yet some still buy his version of events lock, stock , and barrel.

  94. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: You’ve always focused on attacking Zimmerman, just like you focused on attacking Wilson. This left you assuming that anyone who disagreed with you was defending the person in question, instead of just discussing the facts of the case.

    And it STILL burns you that, in both cases, the evidence didn’t support your prejudices, doesn’t it?

  95. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    the facts of the case

    I’m not interesting in discussing the “facts” that you’ve made up, if that’s what you mean. Nor am I interesting in taking the stories of shaky characters that shoot unarmed men/boys at face value.

    Now why don’t you just tell everyone how you have achieved another epic triumph and run along?

    I note that you are still running from the undeniable fact that Wilson’s face showed no evidence of his talking a life threatening beating. So much for an interest in evidence and facts.

  96. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    This left you assuming that anyone who disagreed with you was defending the person in question

    Dude, you more or less had “GZ” kneepads on for better than a year. I’m afraid there is no way for you to walk that back 🙂

  97. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: I think it’s safe to say that your record for honesty and accuracy are as unmarked as Wilson’s face was.

    But the most impressive part of the hate-fest on Zimmerman was how he was morphed from a part-black, part-Hispanic, raised with blacks community organizer who once took on the police over the beating of a black man into a white supremacist. But then, there really isn’t much that the left can’t or won’t do in the name of The Narrative, is there?

  98. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: I note that you are still running from the undeniable fact that Wilson’s face showed no evidence of his talking a life threatening beating. So much for an interest in evidence and facts.

    Oh, what the hell, what’s one more shot at this point…

    You argue this like someone who’s never been punched in the head. Or, perhaps, been punched in the head way too many times.