The DNC is resurrecting Ferguson by inviting Michael Brown’s mom, Lesley McSpadden, to speak at the convention in Philadelphia. She still claims her son is innocent!
Michael Brown was shot and killed on Aug. 9, 2014, by a white police officer, in Ferguson, Mo.
The shooting prompted protests that roiled the area for weeks. In November of that year, the St. Louis County prosecutor announced that a grand jury decided not to indict the officer.
The announcement set off another huge wave of protests. The Obama Justice Department called on Ferguson to overhaul its criminal justice system, declaring that the city had engaged in constitutional violations. Now the DNC wants to continue to pursue this absurd line of reasoning at the convention.
In the mean time, Michael’s mother took to the camera and was it vulgar! **WARNING PROFANE:
It was clear after the dust settled that the shooting was good. It was also clear that the left and BlackLivesMatter created a false narrative to use the matter to further an agenda. Now the DNC is going to stir it all up again at the convention and that is abhorrent!
The final findings by the Obama DOJ on the officer shooting came to the conclusion that it was a good shooting:
Darren Wilson has stated his intent in shooting Michael Brown was in response to a perceived deadly threat. The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson under section 242 would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true – i.e., that Brown never assaulted Wilson at the SUV, never attempted to gain control of Wilson’s gun, and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive. Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of Witness 101, there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat.
Even if Wilson was mistaken in his interpretation of Brown’s conduct, the fact that others interpreted that conduct the same way as Wilson precludes a determination that he acted with a bad purpose to disobey the law. The same is true even if Wilson could be said to have acted with poor judgment in the manner in which he first interacted with Brown, or in pursuing Brown after the incident at the SUV. These are matters of policy and procedure that do not rise to the level of a Constitutional violation and thus cannot support a criminal prosecution. Cf. Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430–31 (8th Cir. 1997) (violation of internal policies and procedures does not in and of itself rise to violation of Constitution). Because Wilson did not act with the requisite criminal intent, it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt to a jury that he violated 18 U.S.C.§ 242 when he fired his weapon at Brown.
So far, the DNC convention has been plagued with scandal. From the recent email revelations that caused Debbi Wasserman Schultz to resign, to not displaying the American flag, to protests by Bernie Sanders supporters…
Of course, then there is the nominee herself! But really, what difference does it make?