We have reported extensively on the ongoing tension in Ferguson, Missouri following the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown. Most recently, it was revealed that the shooting was not an act of random racial violence, but a likely act of self-defense.

That hasn’t stopped the NGOs from marching in with their reports, though.

A recent report from Amnesty International accuses members of the Ferguson police department of committing human rights abuses as they attempted to control protests in the wake of the shooting.

Via Reuters:

The Amnesty International report said law enforcement officers should be investigated by U.S. authorities for the abuses, which occurred during weeks of racially charged protests that erupted after white Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown, 18, on Aug. 9.

The use by law enforcement of rubber bullets, tear gas and heavy military equipment and restrictions placed on peaceful protesters all violated international standards, the group said.

Amnesty said it sent a delegation to Ferguson from Aug. 14-22 to monitor the situation.

The report also criticizes a Missouri law that the group said may be unconstitutional because it allows police to use deadly force against someone even if there is no imminent threat of harm.

The report calls on state lawmakers to make Missouri law comply with international standards making lethal force by police a last resort, said Rachel Ward, director of research at Amnesty International.

“Lethal force is only to be used to protect life when there is an immediate threat,” Ward said. “The Missouri statute goes far beyond that. It is of grave concern.”

This is nothing new. The global governance sect has a long history of using “international standards” to strongarm local and/or national governments into ceding their sovereignty to the whims of a constantly changing global order.

Amnesty International is, of course, free to submit 100 reports on what its investigators think happened in Ferguson. The problem with allowing these reports any real force or authority, however, is that the premise behind what NGOs like Amnesty do is anti-sovereignty and pro-collectivist; they don’t seek to “fix broken systems.” What they want is for sovereign entities to model their governing behavior on international standards that are either developed or highly influenced by, who? Worldwide NGOs and international “governing” bodies.

The biggest issue with the recently-released AI report is the fact that it ignores recent autopsy evidence showing that Brown likely had his hand on Officer Wilson’s gun during the altercation.

Amnesty cited a Missouri statute that says a police officer may use deadly force “in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody” when that officer “reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested … has committed or attempted to commit a felony.”

Witnesses and law enforcement officials have said Brown and Wilson got into an altercation after Wilson told Brown to stop walking down the middle of a street. Wilson shot Brown six times. Some witnesses have said Brown had his hands up in surrender when the last shots were fired.

“Michael Brown was unarmed and thus unlikely to have presented a serious threat to the life of the police officer,” the report said.

I’m sure it was just a typo.

Global governance depends on both governments and the people accepting the premise that unless a governing body submits to international standards, human rights are being violated; that it is not a possibility, but a certainty that discrimination and abuse exists in a world absent the implementation of transnational legal standards.

If U.S. authorities nod to the whims of NGOs like Amnesty International, I can guarantee that months or years from now, the goal posts will move. That’s the problem with looking to standards that constantly evolve based on the latest critical theory law review article: you become beholden to a system that neither respects nor recognizes your authority to govern.