U.S. Not Expected to Fault Officer in Ferguson Case

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.

U.S. Not Expected to Fault Officer in Ferguson Case

as i expected, same evidence that they had for the grand jury maybe even more, same outcome.
how anyone could have thought different is crazy. just as in another high profile case there was not enough evidence to convict or the evidence showed other wise. people using logic instead of emotion or bias win again.

other sources

Law enforcement officials confirm to CBS News the FBI has completed its investigation into the fatal shooting by former Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson of 18-year-old Michael Brown. The bureau has forwarded its recommendations to the Justice Department with "no charges expected."

Sources say the FBI interviewed more than 200 people, and agents have reviewed numerous surveillance tapes and cell phone videos which captured part of the fatal incident, and determined there was no evidence that Wilson broke any federal civil rights laws.
Justice Dept. close to clearing officer in Ferguson shooting

The Justice Department is poised to declare that former police officer Darren Wilson should not face civil rights charges over the death of Michael Brown, law enforcement sources tell NPR. Wilson, who is white, shot and killed Brown, who was black, in August. Brown was not armed.
"Two law enforcement sources tell NPR they see no way forward to file criminal civil rights charges" against Wilson, NPR's Carrie Johnson reports. She adds, "Those charges would require authorities to prove the officer used excessive force and violated Brown's constitutional rights."
Justice Dept. Will Reportedly Clear Ferguson Police Officer In Brown Case

Already another thread here www.abovetopsecret.com...

Though to be fair your OP is a good bit more in depth

U.S. Not Expected to Fault Officer in Ferguson Case

The officer is the least of the towns worries. The whole rotten to the core authority structure there needs to be addressed. Not only there, either.

But like your title says, it won't.

Already being discussed HERE:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: IAMTAT

The ONLY time duplicates are allowed:
On the same topic: we allow a thread in Breaking Alternative News and one other forum.

Feel free to continue to post in either or both threads.

DontTreadOnMe
SuperModerator

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Some people might not be aware sooo...

The Federal investigation revolved ONLY around a possible civil rights violation. Any time an officer shoots and kills an individual they are in fact "seizing" that person under the 4th amendment. The investigation by the Feds comes after the State investigation.

Questions that must be answered during an investigation - Criminal
* - Did the officer violate departmental policy / procedures.
* - Did the officer violate any state laws?

If an officer is in compliance in both areas its extremely unlikely / impossible they would be prosecuted for civil rights violations since the investigation clears the officer of any wrong doing.

If an officer violates one of those areas then the feds could prosecute for a civil rights violation (Feds) and the officer could be prosecuted (state) for homicide. By violating one of the above its difficult to argue the officer didn't violate a persons civil rights by shooting / killing them. Its also a possibility that the entity employing the officer could "sever" themselves from the officer, resulting in the officer essentially being on their own for any court action. Depending on the state the officer would lose immunity.

Specifically - (This is a section in the Civil Rights Act) - Civil
42 USC 1983 - - Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

Hope this helps anyone interested.

a reply to: intrptr

Officer (or is it ex-officer at this point?) Wilson did nothing wrong in the Brown case. THAT is why he will most likely not be charged with any civil-rights violation(s).

There's zero logical reasoning that allows you to imply that this specific case is indicative of a "whole rotten to the core authority structure there." But I guess this whole argument doesn't need rehashed, as it's been debated many times over on ATS.

WOW, that makes the whole race baiting and murders and rioters ALL criminal...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Wilson did nothing wrong in the Brown case.

You were there, saw that? Or just blind faith repeating something you read?

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Maybe Holder will move on to investigate himself for investigating Wilson since the only reason they did the investigation was because Wilson is white.

a reply to: intrptr

No...years of experience as a paralegal and understanding how to interpret available evidence as it pertains to local state laws. I understand the value of trustworthiness as it pertains to differing accounts of the encounter (and how changing stories reduce that trustworthiness dramatically). I understand the importance of the forensic evidence--including the autopsy--and how it plays into the case being considered as a stand-alone piece of evidence and then comparing it to witness accounts, including the officer's, and other forensic evidence. I understand about gunpowder and how it does and does not get on people and at what ranges this occurs. I understand (because I have personally been trained) how to properly respond to a threat to your life or person when you are in a position of authority with a firearm as your primary defensive weapon. I understand that there is a bigger picture to consider when looking at the assailant (like a robbery with assault just minutes before, or other videos of the assailant assaulting people that have recently come out) and whether or not a claim of being a "gentle giant" holds merit. I understand that one can not trust parents and friends to be objective in their statements as to the character and demeanor of the assailant, and that the fact in and surrounding the case must be the foundation upon which a determination of character is made. I understand how to wade through the muck of over-inflated MSM rantings on racial issues or this and that quality of the assailant and to only see the facts objectively. I understand how to use critical thinking as evidence is released to compare it to different scenarios that could have happened during the encounter.

I understand much more than this, but have accepted the fact that I don't need to prove myself to you or anyone else on here in order for my original comment to you to stand on merit and reality.

Hopefully you understand that, in cases like this, there are not the only two extremes of either being an eye witness or holding blind faith reliant upon uninformed articles floating around the interwebs--it's actually possible to employ your IQ and figure things out for yourself.

So...what's your excuse?

Nevermind--I don't want to know. I'm not going to get caught in this perpetual discussion again.

Best Regards.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Wilson did nothing wrong in the Brown case.

You were there, saw that? Or just blind faith repeating something you read?

We're you there? Did you see him violate any civil rights? Or just repeating something you read?

Forensics on the local, State and Federal level all support the officers and numerous other witness testimonies that Wilson was justifyingly defending himself. Just because you believe some liberal propaganda does not make it fact.

Forensics and reliable, consistent eyewitness testimony (all of whom were Black) gets as close as realistically possible. So get off your high horse and go back to your Liberal Indoctrination regimen.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
WOW, that makes the whole race baiting and murders and rioters ALL criminal...

They were criminals regardless.

a reply to: chuck258

Forensics and reliable, consistent eyewitness testimony (all of whom were Black)…

Thats not true. If you are going to respond, at least tell the truth.

Witness *40 is white

She was a liar and a racist, too. Try not to be so obvious.