St. Louis Prosecutor Re-opened Michael Brown Case, Will Not Bring Charges
The Michael Brown shooting launched Black Lives Matter to national prominence, based on the lie that Brown was shot with his hands up, while pleading ‘don’t shoot.’ For the third time, Officer Darren Wilson will not be criminally charged.
I was not aware that, despite a grand jury decision not to indict in 2014 and a Justice Department investigation that cleared officer Darren Wilson in the killing of Michael Brown, a St. Louis prosecutor had reopened the case.
That prosecutor just announced that there would be no charges against Wilson:
In 2018, St. Louis County voters elected Wesley Bell as the county prosecutor, the first African-American elected to the position. Bell defeated longtime prosecutor Bob McCulloch, who became a target of Black activists, unhappy with his handling of the investigation into Brown’s death.
On Thursday, Bell met with McSpadden to give her some news she probably didn’t want to hear. Bell has reviewed the investigation into the shooting death of Brown, at the hands of former Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, and he’s reached the same conclusion McCulloch did: There is not enough evidence to charge Wilson with a crime in Brown’s death.
“In the end, we cannot ethically bring this case to trial,” Bell told me in an interview before he announced the results of the investigation at a news conference. “Our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson.”
[full press conference here]
Michael Brown was not unlawfully killed. As we have written here many times, Brown was shot when he punched Wilson in the face and tried to steal his gun. Here is a sample of our coverage from 2014 and 2015:
- New #Ferguson: “forensic evidence … lent credence to Officer Wilson’s version of events”
- Michael Brown Autopsy A Further Blow To #Ferguson Racial Narrative
- NO INDICTMENT: #Ferguson Grand Jury Verdict Watch (UPDATES)
- Analysis: #Ferguson Grand Jury: NO Indictment In Michael Brown Shooting
- #Ferguson Grand Jury evidence: Police Officer’s Account of Shooting
- #Ferguson Eye Witness Intimidation: Chilling Details
- Darren Wilson Cleared by DOJ of Civil Rights Violations
When you see Brown on the Black Lives Matter list of people allegedly unlawfully killed, understand that his name should not be on that list.
Understand also that when Black Lives Matter protesters march chanting “hands up, don’t shoot,” they are perpetuating a fabricated narrative of the Brown case.
Here is the fundamental point that I made in 2019, and which remains true, Five years ago Michael Brown died, and a movement based on lies was born.
If the people at Cornell who tried to cancel me for speaking this truth can’t handle the truth, that’s their problem, not mine.
[Featured Image: Police photo showing bruises on Officer Darren Wilson’s face after Michael Brown punched him while trying to steal his gun.]
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It is dirty pool for the prosecutor to say he’s not exonerating someone whom he is not charging. Either charge the individual and bring the case to trial, or shut your mouth. Mueller tried the same shtick with President Trump (and as we now know the whole Mueller investigation was based in nothing, except an attempted coup). Remember, until proven otherwise in court, everyone is not guilty (hence innocent). IMHO When a prosecutor uses this shtick, of casting aspersions on someone not charged, the prosecutor should be disciplined.
That’s not really fair either. Just because you don’t think you can prove someone’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt does not make him innocent. The presumption of innocence applies only within the context of a criminal trial. The accused may actually be guilty, but unless a jury has found him so beyond reasonable doubt the law must treat him as if he is innocent. Nobody else is bound to such a presumption.
I am uncomfortable with a prosecutor using his/her office to try to inflict damage on someone he has no intention of prosecuting.
He should either prosecute or not prosecute, and nothing else. If he wants to editorialize, then he should quit and write a book.
Saying what he said serves no purpose but to safeguard his re-election and to keep stirring the anger. It is the height of irresponsibility.
This is not some Joe Blow off the streets. It’s the county prosecutor. Does this clown sound like he believes in the concept of innocent until proven guilty? Yes, I know a prosecutor’s job is to prosecute and not be a judge. At the same time, he is saying: The evidence doesn’t exist but boy, oh boy, we sure wish it was and it’s probably out there somewhere. Sorry, I don’t want eager tyrannical beavers like this with power. We are seeing more prosecutors take cases for reasons that have to do with politics than justice.
Just because you can say things out of a courtroom doesn’t mean you have to open your big fat mouth and say them.
Suppose there is enough evidence to prove that someone is probably guilty of a crime, but not to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. It’s a prosecutor’s duty not to bring such a case; probably is good enough for civil cases, but not for criminal ones. But at the same time the person is hardly exonerated.
Not a prosecutor’s job to exonerate.
But at the same time the person is hardly exonerated.
So far as the prosecutor is concerned, he sure as hell is.
You are innocent until proven guilty.
That’s it. Suggesting anything more is just the vile meanderings of a prog sympathizer.
Instead of hypotheticals, let’s talk about this case. Where is there evidence that Wilson is probably guilty of a crime? The Obama DOJ stated there was “no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat.” Locally, the grand jury didn’t find evidence to indict.
What on earth is this prosecutor talking about?
No, tom swift, even as far as the prosecutor is concerned, a person who is probably guilty is not exonerated. He just gets away with it, because the evidence isn’t strong enough to convict him. That’s how our justice system works.
Colonel Travis, I’m not referring to this case. I’m referring to JackinSilverSpring’s comment. I believe Darren Wilson is in fact innocent, but as a general statement it is not necessarily dirty pool for a prosecutor to say he’s not exonerating someone whom he is not charging. If the evidence is against the person, but not strongly enough to convict him, I think it’s proper for a prosecutor to say so.
In fact that’s precisely the problem here, and the real reason you and everyone here was upset by this statement: by saying this the prosecutor is implying that this is the situation with Wilson, when in fact (as far as we know) that’s not true. The public evidence seems to show not only that Wilson can’t be convicted, but also that he’s actually innocent. As far as we know the decision not to charge him is not a close one; the evidence to convict him is not only insufficient, it’s nonexistent. That’s why this statement is wrong, not the mere fact that he isn’t charging him.
That is my point.
Exoneration in no way whatsoever lies within the prosecutions purview.
You really need to re-read the grand jury ruling which goes into great detail about why there is no case against Darrell Wilson. It was released by televised press conference and the video is available. It even goes into how the initial eyewitnesses admitted being pressured to lie and ALL OF THEM changed their testimony.
The facts speak for themselves and they are absolutely conclusive. There is absolutely no wiggle room for doubt.
What is wrong with you??
Exactly. So why shouldn’t he say so? You’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Pasadena Phil, how many times must I make it clear that this sub-thread is not about Wilson. It’s about the proposition that failure to charge someone is an exoneration. In Wilson’s case, yes, he’s exonerated; but that is not by the three separate decisions not to charge him, it’s by the evidence itself (at least that which has been made public).
The blood trail proves that Brown was killed in self defense. All the evidence supported the Officers claim of self defense. What more do you need to be positive the officer was justified?
Too cute by half Milhouse. No statement whatsoever about exoneration lies within his purview it is NONE OF HIS BUSINESS IN ANY WAY to even comment, at all, on ‘exoneration”
rdm, why shouldn’t he say something YOU ADMIT is true? If he can’t exonerate someone why shouldn’t he say so? Is it not his privilege to explain what is and isn’t in his purview?
While what you have stated is true, the opposite is true as well. Just because you believe someone is guilty, even though you cannot prove reasonable doubt, that belief does not make the person guilty. The nature of our system is that we err on the side of letting the guilty go free rather than convicting the innocent. Mind, that is a ‘perfect world’ vision of our system. It sometimes fails, and the innocent are convicted. In a perfect world we also don’t have people who live their entire lives neither charged, nor convicted of a crime, yet ‘convicted’ by popular opinion such that their life is a constant trial. Yet that too happens.
The accused cannot respond to the prosecutor’s accusations without a trial. A prosecutor has enormous power to destroy a life and it must be used sparingly.
If the prosecutor cannot bring a case to court, he must remain silent until enough evidence can be found.
In a perfect world, Prosecutor Bell would be impeached from his office and disbarred for his actions.
What you say is technically true and in true in some cases, but there is more than enough eyewitness and physical evidence in this case to exonerate the officer.
To say otherwise by the DA is irresponsible.
Exactly right. That was probably why this “investigation” was re-opened. There was nothing to re-investigate. Both the grand jury and Rahm Emanuel’s DOJ concluded that this was an open-shut case. But now the new prosecutor Bell, in true Millhouse fashion, picks on a scab to make a useless theoretical legal point.
I expect this will open up a new line of political argument over the blatant and utterly debunked “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!” lie, that Wilson was not exonerated so he may still be guilty.
You are 100% correct. Darren Wilson has already been exonerated twice. Once by the DoJ and once by this Bell idiot’s predecessor. But really it wasn’t the previous DA who exonerated Wilson. It was the physical evidence, all the reliable testimony presented to the grand jury, and then the grand jury itself.
Note I say reliable testimony. There were a couple of clowns who clearly perjured themselves. One was Brown’s pot smoking buddy. He invented the lie that Michael Brown was on his knees with his hands up saying, “Don’t shoot.” Another that a recall was a young woman who said that’s what she saw as well. The problem with her testimony is she didn’t see it. She told investigators that she was in the parking lot of her apartment building when she saw the shooting. She would have had to have x-ray vision to see through the building on the other side of the parking lot which would block a mere mortal’s vision because the shooting took place on the street on the other side of that building.
Only a handful of people disputed Darren Wilson’s account. And those people such as Michael Brown’s partner in crime either had a reason to lie or like that woman that woman whose vision was blocked by a multi-story building couldn’t possibly have seen it.
It’s possible the few people who couldn’t see the shooting but lied and said they did had been intimidated into testifying that Michael Brown was on his knees begging not to be shot. Remember, his father was a member of the Bloods. A gang like the Crips, Vice Lords, Latin Kings, MS-13, etc. well known for witness intimidation. But grand jury testimony is given anonymously and in secret. Even so it still took courage for the scores of witnesses who did actually see the shooting to testify truthfully. And all of them backed up Darren Wilson’s account. And like Darren Wilson’s account their testimony was corroborated by the physical evidence.
Based on that the grand jury ruled that Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown in self defense. And, pace Milhouse, if you kill someone in self-defense then you are entirely innocent of a crime. Hence you are exonerated.
I’ve looked up this Bell character. He is described as a “progressive” or “radical” prosecutor who wants to stop “mass incarceration” (like systemic racism, white privilege, or white supremacy, it’s a complete lie; it simply doesn’t exist). He wants to stop “debtors prisons” (typically that means abolishing bail and not prosecuting theft under a certain dollar amount). And of course rebuilding trust between the “community” and the prosecutor’s office. Note: he didn’t mention anything about rebuilding trust between the “community” and the police. I’m sure he’s a fan of abolishing them. I’ll have to do a deeper dive, but George Soros funded the campaigns of prosecutors all across the country and it sounds like he got his money worth. It’s essentially satire to call these people prosecutors because their intent is to essentially legalize crime and not to prosecute anyone except the police and homeowners defending their lives and property. It sounds like Wesley Bell is one of Soros’ pet non-prosecutors.
The bottom line is that this is simply leftist political persecution. Bell is throwing a bone to the #BLM/Antifa mob and trying to insinuate there is some doubt about Darren Wilson’s innocence when there isn’t a shred of doubt.
I suspect that claiming that some murdered a person when evidence says otherwise, would make a good libel defamation case.
I have empathy for Zimmerman and Wilson. It was a huge mistake to not bury those persecuting both in both civil and criminal litigation. Look how allowing that shit to go unpunished has emboldened the riff raff.
Sophistic arguments like this are why people hate lawyers, milhouse. Technically you are correct, “not guilty” does not mean “innocent”. But that is true of EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS EVER BEEN ACQUITTED OF A CRIME. At this point, *six* years later, it is obvious to everyone the prosecutor is just playing politics. Including you. That is not how the justice system is supposed to work.
Tell me, do you think OJ was exonerated? How about Bill Ayers?
In OJ’s case a civil jury found that he was probably guilty; not beyond reasonable doubt, but more likely than not. That proves that his acquittal was not an exoneration.
In Ayers’s case the charges were dropped because the FBI misbehaved. The total evidence was probably enough to convict him, but the evidence the prosecution would be allowed to show a jury was not, so there was no point in trying him. But he publicly admitted his actual guilt.
It doesn’t matter how many years go by, some people who are acquitted are actually innocent, but many are not, so the fact of an acquittal is neither here nor there.
I believe Wilson is not only not chargeable, but actually innocent. But the first fact doesn’t imply the second.
Do you not understand that the charges against Wilson were based entirely on lies? The evidence was exonerating. He WAS exonerated! The OJ case was lost because the LA police planted evidence and because the prosecution was utterly inept. Again, what is wrong with you? You are not only a boring pedant, you are a consistently disingenuous pedant.
Using your Legal Theory to it’s coclusion. The Prosecutor could make the exact same Statement about ANYONE. “I’m not exonerating John Doe of being a Pedophile.” That IS the problem with your Argument, no facts are needed and yet, to you; it’s a true statement. Just a grossly Prejudicial one.
Phil, I’ve written at least ten times that I do understand that. This thread is not about that. It’s entirely about JackInSilverSpring’s comment, which was a general statement, not confined to this case in particular. He said the prosecutor’s statement is dirty pool, and I said his comment was not really fair either. I agree that the statement is unfair in this context, but such statements in general are often not at all unfair.
If you understand that, why do you persist with a disingenuous tactic of pedantry? In the spirit of having useful discussions, let me illustrate my ongoing problem with you.
“A man in a balloon gets carried away by a wind to points unknown. Eventually, he lands in the middle of a field and sees a man walking nearby. He calls out to him and asks
“Where am I?” The man replies
“You are in a balloon in the middle of a field.”
The exasperated balloonist then quips
“You must be an accountant.” to which the man says
“Yes I am! How did you know?”
“Because everything thing you said was completely correct but utterly useless.”
Get the point? You keep arguing that you are factually correct when the problem is that the point you are making is at best useless and too often disingenuously misleading.
I am not a lawyer but your habit of arguing over legal minutiae is tedious. A total waste of time reading your “true” but “useless” commentary. Knock it off already.
Phil, it is not pedantry to discuss what we are discussing and not something else. JackInSilverSpring made a comment that I thought unfair, so I replied. That is the topic of this thread. Wilson’s innocence is irrelevant to that.
Mil,
Might the fact that then-Officer Darren Wilson was never indicted boost and sustain, say, his complete innocence index?
This would mean, the state attorney’s comment — that his office’s inability to find sufficient evidence to indict Darren Wilson, possibly leading to his conviction, still “does not exonerate the former police officer” — is illogical and unnecessary, and thus legally superfluous and wrong with respect to any sensible jurisprudence.
A thorough, well-wrought discussion follows, one hopefully worthy of your time and opinion. (I don’t want to fail to dot, say, an important “i” or cross a telling “t”.)
Were the twice-found-justified killer of Michael Brown ever indicted and needing to stand trial, I could see the as-if presumption kicking in upon indictment by the state attorney and throughout the trial until the jury published its verdict.
Continuing this hypothetical, if, immediately after publishing their verdict, the jury finds Defendant Wilson guilty, well, that would immediately end his presumed, as-if innocence, and off he goes to jail until being sentenced.
But if, on the other hand, immediately after publishing their verdict, the jury finds Defendant Wilson not guilty, then I would expect — and I know you’ll duly and fairly correct my possible mistake — that his presumed, as-if innocence, because he’d been indicted, immediately reverts back to a status of complete innocence, comparable to any unindicted American outside the courthouse. In that and only in that case, Defendant Wilson, by virtue of the jury’s not-guilty verdict, has been exonerated — ie, no longer bearing the onus or burden of being in legal purgatory between a presumed, as-if kind of innocence, following indictment, and guilty.
Thus, many of us find State Attorney Wallace’s comment that, his Office’s inability to find sufficient evidence to convict still “does not exonerate Darren Wilson” — just like the federal OSC last year said of President Trump, that although it could not find sufficient evidence to provide (the House Judiciary Committee) a sufficient basis to impeach, ie, indict the president, its findings still “do not exonerate the president” — gratuitous and inappropriate, and simply unintelligible in generally recognized due-process aspects of criminal law.
As in the federal case, so in the St Louis County case: a finding of insufficient evidence to indict renders the investigated individual still completely innocent, like any other unindicted American, thus obviating any possible inference that the same individual still bears any legal onus or burden. In this case, therefore, “exoneration” does not apply, and that an office’s finding not to indict still does not exonerate the same completely innocent individual is illogical and procedurally wrong on its face, let alone constitutionally.
No. I believe that Wilson is actually innocent, but the mere fact that the evidence isn’t enough to convict him doesn’t prove it. Had the evidence shown that he was probably guilty the exact same events would still have happened. He still would not have been charged, either by the grand jury, or the feds, or the new prosecutor. And yet he would have remained probably guilty for the rest of his life.
I don’t think this is actually the case, but that’s based on my understanding of the underlying evidence, not on the mere fact that three separate decision-makers decided not to charge him.
Why do you always twist logic into pretzels to defend the indefensible?
rdm – Milhouse often takes an unpopular position here and he goes to great length to explain his thoughts. As a result, he has to put up with a lot of sniping and cheap shots. It’s easy to respect someone you might not agree with if he has enough respect for everyone to explain himself.
I, along with others, sometimes disagree with Milhouse but that doesn’t deter him from expressing his opinion and, after all, isn’t that why we’re here? You might try following his logic before you chuck rocks.
.
I give you straight logic. Always. You wouldn’t know logic if it bit you on a sensitive part of your anatomy, because you always decide your position based on what you want it to be, with no regard for either truth or logic.
Dshornet – his very argument is a cheap shot and an affront to reason.
rdm, you have no business talking about reason. To use your own language, it is not in your purview.
Gee. ‘Mildly’ showing up to be a ‘white knight’ for the sniveling leftist weasel. Go figure.
It is risible to suggest that Darren Wilson was not completelty innocent. Brown punched him in the face as he sat in his police vehicle. Brown then attempted to grab Officer Wilson’s gun causing it to fire. Brown than charged at Wilson when ordered to stop. What do you suggest that Officer Wison should have done when the 6’4″, 290 lb Brown charged at him? Was he supposed to risk being killed by Brown? What is the matter with you?
Apparently, a Social Worker would have been needed. /sarc
I have not suggested any such thing. How many times must I say so?
And since the prosecutor literally represents “the law” in this capacity, he should keep his mouth shut.
On the contrary, since he represents the law it’s up to him to explain what the law does and doesn’t do. Precisely because he’s not in the exoneration business it’s proper for him to explain that no decision of his is ever an exoneration.
In this case his statement is uncalled for, not because it’s incorrect but because it implies that there is evidence of Wilson’s guilt, albeit not sufficient for the purpose of prosecution. Were that the case the statement would be proper.
He should say “it is not within my powers to make any statement on exoneration.”
It seems to me that presumption of innocence remains if a case cannot be made to convict. Holding an opinion that someone is guilty is fine, hiprofile broadcasting that opinion, stating the opinion as fact, is asking for a libel defamation lawsuit.
The presumption of innocence only exists in the context of a criminal trial. No trial, no presumption.
And Bell did not say that he thinks Wilson is guilty. We don’t even know whether he privately holds that opinion; he certainly didn’t “hiprofile broadcast” it, or “state it as fact”.
As a representative of the law he has no business in anyway whatsoever commenting on exoneration or lack of exoneration. His entire duty from beginning to end is to say we are not charging him. End of story.
Explain exactly why it is wrong for him to tell people what his job does and doesn’t entail.
Too cute by half again Milly – pedantic argumentation.
‘My job is to decide if I will bring a case. I will not.”
End of statement.
Milhouse, you’re beclowning yourself. Wesley Bell is a hard core leftist and this is simply political persecution. He’s insinuating there’s some doubt about Darren Wilson’s innocence but there isn’t any doubt. The grand jury didn’t just find there was insufficient evidence to charge him. It cleared him, finding he acted in lawful self defense.
If you kill someone in self defense you have committed no crime at all. Therefore you are exonerated.
Black
Methinks the discipline should be the death penalty.
Because a judge that will do that has already revealed himself to be a traitor to The Republic.
What judge are you talking about? What judge has done what that you object to?
What judge?
Seems like we have been relying on prosecutorial integrity to much. Now that Soros has bought himself a bunch of prosecutors without integrity the system is being used for political purposes.
The only way to convict Darren Wilson of a crime is to take him before Judge Sullivan.
Is Wesley Bell another Soros minion?
No. He’s just another black with some power sticking it to whitey, and wanting to stir up trouble where none should be..
“sticking”
Black culture has gone far down the wrong path. I am afraid that it will take a very long time to fix, or that maybe it cannot be fixed.
That’s a good question, and I don’t know how to find the answer. If he is, at least he’s honest enough not to bring a case he knows he can’t win.
“Our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson.”
Translation: we have no evidence, but we hate him so we will keep accusing him.
At some point in the future the case will be reopened AGAIN. And some time after that -AGAIN. And AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN…..
Until one day Officer Wilson will be indicted, tried, and convicted, all at the same time. He may be long dead (along with just about all the witnesses), and there still won’t be any evidence, but the genocidal hate that drives Communists will require them to pursue their quarry forever.
A modern-day John Wycliffe, who will be convicted of Heresy long after his passing, and the mob will demand that his bones be dug up and burned.
Can Officer Wilson sue the DA for that statement?
I don’t think so, because what he said is true, and the implication that there are still grounds to suspect him is too vague to be actionable.
Milhous got a down-tick for his reply to you, but, as near as I – not a lawyer – can tell, Milhous is right. Bell knows precisely what he is doing. He is within the law, but is stirring things up and causing trouble. He knows he can’t be sued, and likely will not be disciplined.
While a bit of a stretch for comparison, I recall a fellow in the amateur radio community in the Pacific Northwest. A BAD troublemaker, and always operated just a hair’s-breadth this side of legal, but causing consternation and problems just the same. He also had a lot of people scared to death of him. Eventually, he was brought to heel, and not in court.
This is another case of the process being the punishment. More legal bills, more harassment of the officer and his family, more headlines, more riots. They are trying to drive the man either into a stroke or suicide.
The new guy looked over the file, and saw that there could be no prosecution, and gave an honest, if unwelcome, assessment: “In the end, we cannot ethically bring this case to trial,”
He made a mistake by throwing the mob a bone: “Our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson.”
I disagree. The prosecutor is a racist dirtbag, but he did not want to go to trial and have damaging information about “St Michael” come out, and lose the case. So he pulled a sleazy, dishonest Mueller-like dodge and punted to some future prosecutor to do all over again.
He dies nit want to go to trial because then “jeopardy” would attach. Better for the new prosecutor to leave this hanging than to take the loss on his scorecard.
Double jeopardy or not there is no way that the officer could be convicted if he has a fair trial. That is why the persecutor is not bring him to trial.
What were the negative consequences for the persecutor who tried the 6 officers for the death of Freddie Grey? She proved to the world that she was an incompetent affirmative action lawyer, but was she fired or go to prison as she deserved?
Her name is Marilyn Mosby, and not only did she not suffer any adverse consequences for her unjustified prosecutions of the cops in the Freddy Gray case, but Maryland voters rewarded her incompetence by re-electing her.
And the cops’ lawsuit against her was dismissed because of absolute immunity.
Let his kind inform any of you on here that are in the legal profession: people like this man are why we, the non-lawyers, find the profession one step above prostitution.
On the contrary, many people believe that the majority of prostitutes provide a useful service at a generally reasonable cost. The same cannot be said for their opinion of the majority of lawyers … particularly when cost is considered!
What he said.
There are exceptions.
Except a prostitute will stop screwing you once you die.
Prostitution is now,a step above.
Above?
I think Bell would definitely have pursued the case if it had happened six months ago instead of six years ago. The more time has passed, the more difficult it becomes. Plus the case has already been thoroughly investigated from top to bottom (three autopsies, a DOJ investigation and a no-bill from a grand jury). It would be difficult for Bell to plausibly claim that he has found “new information” not previously known. I suspect he is less worried about getting re-elected than he is about incurring ethics violations that could cost him his law license….and thus prevent him from having the opportunity to railroad political enemies in upcoming cases. Darren Wilson may be out of reach, but people like the McCloskeys are not.
I disagree. Six months or six years, the evidence still isn’t enough to convict him. In fact it isn’t even close; the evidence isn’t enough even to sustain a feeling that he’s getting away with something. Unless there’s some secret evidence I’m not aware of, the evidence is that he’s actually innocent. But at the very least, he can’t be convicted, and therefore he can’t be charged.
Since when has lack of evidence stopped a leftist?
It just stopped this one.
No it didn’t it merely paused him. Do you know very well if he has an opportunity that he will immediately try again.
He had an opportunity now. The only reason he didn’t take it was the lack of evidence. Therefore the lack of evidence is enough to stop him.
I thank Officer Darren Wilson for his service to Ferguson, to Missouri and to anywhere that the big, stupid, stoned and hideous thug was determined to defile.
Darren Wilson is the only name that came out of the despicable crime, unscathed and honorable.
No, it does belong on that list, because the whole list is more or less the same. Some of the people named deserved to die; some were sadly the collateral damage of a legitimate use of force, or were the victims of honest error, like friendly fire in war; some committed suicide, or died by accident; and some, perhaps, were unlawfully killed and the killer faced or is facing justice.
Why is defending the indefensible so important to you?
Huh? What indefensible thing do you suppose I’m defending now?
In many states there are limits on can be reopened after a no-bill. Doesn’t Missouri have such limitations?
Which states are those? I’ve never heard of such a thing, but I’d be interested to learn of such states.
Wesley Bell does not appear to be too bright, either politically or legalistically. The Brown case was a wholly legally justified OIS. This was obvious from the get-go. Even if Ofc. Wilson had shot Brown in the back, as he ran away, this would still have been justified as Brown had just committed not one, but two, strong armed robberies. But, Brown went a step further and turned around and rushed Wilson. J.U.S.T.F.I.E.D.
Now, the Grand Jury had given the St. Louis County DA plenty of cover in this case, by refusing to return a true bill against Wilson in 2014. A savvy DA would have simply said the Grand Jury has made its decision, no new evidence has appeared and the criminal matter is closed. Instead, he manages to tee-off both sides of the issue. Now, nobody is happy with him. What a maroon.
But Bell avoids trial (which he might lose). This way he gets to insinuate that Wilson is guilty without having to prove it.
Affirmative Action, like a whole boatload of AA mayors, DA’s… just God awful
The not-yet-governing Left’s goal and shorter-term objectives are never peace through law, order and supportive rational conduct, but constant dissatisfaction, strife, class-warfare, and, if practically achievable, mayhem.
In 2014 we stilled enjoyed the concepts of due process, legal procedure, justice. Now, we have the Brooks case in Atlanta where there was no investigation, no due process and no hope for justice. In this light, no charges against Ofc. Wilson is a win no matter the turn of phrase.
Garrett Rolfe and Devin Brosnan have plenty of hope for justice. They may very well pull an honest judge who will dismiss the charges; or at least an honest jury that will acquit them. Paul Howard’s own legal problems may even lead to his replacement by someone who will drop the charges. And if that happens they may win a lawsuit against the city for firing them, and be compensated with enough to move somewhere that will appreciate them.
That’s a lot of maybes. And, “Where is Wilson now?” Still floating away from a life raft is my guess.
You said there was no hope for justice. There is plenty of hope. We shall see whether that hope pans out.
“Wesley Bell does not appear to be too bright”
Another Affirmative incompetent. What is unfortunate is that well qualified blacks degrees are devalued by the larger number of incompetents.
And where is Darren Wilson now? Last I heard was years ago, when he was unemployed and unemployable, and having to live in hiding. I don’t see how that’s ever going to change. He deserves compensation, but I don’t know from whom. He deserves to be made whole, but that’s impossible thanks to these vicious people.
I never understood why he voluntarily resigned his job, with no payment. It didn’t make sense. If they wanted him gone they should have had to pay him his entire expected earnings for the rest of his working life. They should also have had to provide him with protection for as long as he was in danger, just as they do to others who get death threats.
I did not know that. How horrible, PTSD I am
sure made him make those decisions. He saw what happened to other police officers, he didn’t want any part of it
He needs to get a lawyer, like Sidney Powell and hot them for everything they have. Or Sandman’s lawyer
Those two have given me faith that their are still some brilliant lawyers with integrity left in this Land of ours…
The problem is that he resigned voluntarily, they didn’t fire him. So now how can he sue? For what? They didn’t do anything to him. He didn’t give them a chance to. That’s why I don’t understand why he did it.
I bet that he was depressed, and they took advantage of him. What about that group of black lawyers who were suing to revoke his credentials, how did that turn out, and could they be sued? If not, then should there be an operation to destroy each of their lives?
Maybe there is a need for a variation on the theme of witness protection. A way for folks like Wilson to get a fresh start.
I don’t particularly like – or trust – cops. But, the Wilson situation is clear: Wilson was right in what he did.
By Milhouse’s standard, I can accuse him of being a child molester and a murderer, and only the law must give him the presumption of innocence. Until he is found guilty or not guilty, the rest of us can reasonably consider him a child molester and a murderer.
What nonsense. Americans are due their day in court, and if the law fails to pursue charges, he is being denied a speedy trial and be able to defend himself.
Schiff or get off the pot.
Tell me, is Bill Ayers a terrorist? Is OJ a murderer? The fact of acquittal or not being charged doesn’t exonerate a person. Only the actual evidence can do so. In Wilson’s case I believe it does. But in OJ’s and Ayers’s cases, as in many more, it doesn’t.
You can say that Ayers is a terrorist and OJ is a murderer. I can also. But a prosecutor in a position to bring such a case, and who finds he cannot, cannot say this because he is an official bound to the formal presumption of innocence.
Think of it as a gag rule for our masters (for a change).
Where in the law do you find such a gag? Does the first amendment not apply to him too?
In his official capacity, as an agent of the government, there’s no reason to automatically assume he does.
An agent of the government has no “freedom of association” allowing him to deal with some people and refuse to deal with others. He has no “security in his papers” that allows him non-transparency in his official records, or against having his records seized by authority. Some (e.g., servicemembers) even have no “freedom of the press” allowing them to criticize anyone in their chain of command, and no “right to keep and bear arms” where they are housed.
The Bill of Rights protects people against government tyranny, not to protect government tyranny.
Better still, by your standard Hillary Clinton is innocent and nobody may accuse her of taking bribes!
“Our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson.”
And county prosecutor is an elective office, so we can’t even blame Affirmative Action.
Yes we can, it’s probably how he got in law school to begin with!
Then he runs in a black area and Lordy Jesus, he hit the jackpot
I really felt good about race relations before Obama, can’t say I’m not racist now
Even with black friends , I just don’t feel I can trust so many of them, and quite frankly, after watching videos of young black men punching out 92 y/o white ladies with walkers
I don’t feel safe around them
Just being honest
You’re in good company, well sorta 🙂
Jesse Jackson doesn’t want to hear the footsteps of young black men behind him.
He is either a recipient of affirmative action, or knew how to throw or bounce a ball.
“Bell defeated longtime prosecutor Bob McCulloch, who became a target of Black activists, unhappy with his handling of the investigation into Brown’s death.“
In other words, angry black activists were upset that McCulloch would not charge Wilson with a crime just to placate the mob despite an absence of evidence. So they replaced him with someone they thought would do just that.
Expect more of this around the country, folks.
And there are already activists attacking Bell and calling him the “black Bob McCulloch” among other things.
I wonder if leftists attacking other leftists should be considered a natural law of the universe? LOL
I believe the following has ample, default explanatory power:
Think Leftist financial backers, like Soros or other players, such as Strayer and Bloomfield. Soros especially is backing more and more candidates for DA offices nationwide. They want social disruption and chaos, ripe for intervention, conquest, and control.
Sounds nefarious and suspect, I know, but, barring alien invasion, what else out there disconfirms the theory and supports another?
Random incompetence doesn’t cut it for me, even chaos theory’s a stretch, as far as I can reckon. Who knows?
Bell, ‘“Our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson.”‘ Bell is a graduate of the Robert Mueller School of Legal Fiction Writers. He’ll be celebrated for his courageous dismissal and denial of inconvenient facts and elevated to Beltway notoriety, fame, and fortune. Count on it.
Robert Mueller rot has infected this country like a bad case of herpes, it will never go away.
Okay, thanks; however, my question wasn’t wide enough.
. . . And please comment on the state attorney’s caveat, that ” . . . Our investigation does not exonerate Darren Wilson”.
Given what you’ve said, is that a legally valid and appropriate statement, consistent with Wilson’s due-process rights?
IOW, if you or a family member of yours was being investigated and no indictment was filed for the same reason Darren Wilson had not been indicted twice before and presently, a third time, and the DA added this caveat to her office-finding’s public announcement (say, it concerned a big-deal event or person), would you find it reasonable, acceptable, and unobjectionable as a matter of prosecutorial conduct?
The problem with the caveat is not with its literal truth but with the implication that significant evidence of guilt exists, just not quite sufficient to justify charges. If that’s indeed the case then I see nothing wrong with his saying so. In this case it isn’t, so his statement, while true, is unfair.
The problem is his entire statement should’ve been “my job is to decide whether to bring charges. I have decided not to bring charges.”.
End of statement.
Okay, I think I got it now, completely, Mil. And you were extremely thorough and careful — most of all consistent — in the many helpful distinctions and explanations you offered; so, thank you.
In this case, the SLCSA acted inappropriately, unprofessionally, and even recklessly — ie, neglecting the possible consequences of his highly charged public statement w/r/t the public peace and safety — by stating the given caveat.
Right, the end of the matter?
Much of the problem is related to Affirmative Action. Kill Affirmative Action, start judging people solely based on merit. Insist that blacks do well on SAT to gain admission to college. And that once they are in college, that they perform. Do the same with jobs.
Black’s problems go far beyond low IQ, they need to be held accountable, just like the rest of us, are held fully accountable.
(My above entry should have been a reply to Milhouse, today at 3:45 AM)
and he’s reached the same conclusion McCulloch did
Wait, a black prosecutor and a white prosecutor reached the same conclusion?! How is this possible? Obviously the black prosecutor is not really black, or something.
/sarc
If the people at Cornell who tried to cancel me for speaking this truth can’t handle the truth, that’s their problem, not mine.
Well, no. It’s the problem of all of us. Because these people (some of them, anyway) vote. They elect the Soros-funded anti-American DAs and state legislators. They teach your kids in the public school. They form the mobs that drive corporations, city councils and your local school board to do stupid crap that destroys our free republic.
So, yeah, it’s our problem.
The solution is home schooling and not bending the knee to the woke mob. It’s possible; Trader Joe’s just did it when leftists demanded via petition that the chain change the names of their ethnic foods.
Trader Joe’s told them FOAD. Well, not in those exact words. They told the leftist mob they don’t make marketing decisions based on petitions. And their customers liked those names.
Red Bull just did it as well. The Austrian-based company fired their top North American executives when they showed signs of introducing woke policies. If you fire enough people eventually the others get the message and understand they need to cut that crap out.
“Police families, how do they bear it?”
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0720/kass073120.php3
Reiterating in public that a man accused or murder — where he has pleaded justification — can literally, technically, never be exonerated (because it is impossible to prove a negative) does not serve the cause of justice.
Its sole value is to keep old wounds fresh.
The prosecutor is guilty of contributing to incitement to riot.
Look at the nonsensical, Orwellian, totalitarian Newspeak of the vile Dhimmi-crats — Wilson hasn’t been “exonerated” — as if it’s up to the State to opine on that, in the absence of not charging, and, slandering an innocent man, in the process.
These people are vicious, evil and dangerous, willing to subvert and distort law, truth and facts, to serve their political aims.
Being exonerated is not a thing. There is no such thing as being exonerated. A prosecutor charges one with a crime, or they do not. If they do not charge, a person is not not-guilty, they’re not innocent and they’re not exonerated. They are simply a citizen going about their own life.
With a Sword of Damocles hanging over them. One for which they must continually spend money to guard against… as well as the salary of their persecutor.
Darren Wilson is certainly a hero and role model, which Kim Gardner and Wesley Bell definitely are not.
Milhouse is deliberately endorsing the following system:
If you are accused of a crime for which there is no evidence, you should forever live with a Sword of Damocles hanging over your head. At any time, for any politician’s purposes, you must be ready and able to muster the resources, in money, time, and physical danger, to re-prove your innocence.
Any well coached “eyewitness” can be used for this, while your evidence disproving it disintegrates, the witnesses who testified for you become unwilling to invest their own time and money to re-hash the case, and a newly appointed political judge presides over it. All the while, you, your family, your current employer, and those same witnesses face the very real possibility that their identities will be revealed and they will be subject to the “Minneapolis Effect” of having their lives and property threatened.
That is what has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen as long as Milhouse and his fellow leftists can enable it. You will be punished by process, forever.
Don’t let him lie you into believing otherwise.