Justice Department to recommend Darren Wilson not face charges...

Justice Department to recommend Darren Wilson not face charges for violating civil rights of Michael Brown in controversial Ferguson shooting

Federal prosecutors have been investigating whether the killing violated the unarmed, black 18-year-old's civil rights. A report by The New York Times indicates that the feds are trying to conclude that investigation and don't intend to prosecute Darren Wilson, who was not indicted by a state grand jury. The decision in the state case triggered rioting in Ferguson, Mo., and widespread protests nationwide. Source

So it would appear that the Justice Department, under Eric Holder, has found that Michael Brown's civil rights were not violated in the controversial shooting back in August which would put them in concurrence with the Grand Jury who found that there was not enough evidence to indite Officer Darren Wilson.

Despite earlier comments by Holder, where he stated that he understood the mistrust in Ferguson revolving around law enforcement and the possible prosecution of Wilson, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has recommended that no charges be filed in the case and that their findings correlate to what was discovered in the initial investigations and autopsies.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And there you have it. But I think there is more to this than meets the eye. I think that this Admin wants more protests and this will spark even more protests, mark my word.

well ain't that a shocker!
-said nobody.

it's incredible how much chaos can be generated when stupidities collide.
Michael brown and the office were both stupid people doing stupid things, and from their meeting, we now have this huge mess on our hands.
Although why this case got more spotlight than the murder of tamir rice is beyond me.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Not the same as "not guilty". There was no trial verdict. Just a hand me down decision…

originally posted by: TDawgRex
...and this will spark even more protests, mark my word.

Of that I have no doubts.

We all know that Michael Brown should have been killed in self defence at the convenience store he robbed prior to his encounter with trigger happy commando Wilson.

originally posted by: intrptr
Not the same as "not guilty". There was no trial verdict. Just a hand me down decision…

The Justice Department obviously feels that there was not enough evidence to get a guilty verdict either, hence no charges.

Just gonna leave these here....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I will say that I'm surprised none of these threads seem to be turning in to the same length as the ones that popped up after the GJ declined to indict. Curious, that

a reply to: Shamrock6

Damn, I searched and those did not come up. I was surprised when I did not see anything and that it was not a lengthy discussion.

Perhaps everyone is rightfully burnt out on this topic.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The Justice Department obviously feels that there was not enough evidence to get a guilty verdict either, hence no charges.

Thats for the courts to decide, not some 'Grand' Jury, DA, or "Department".

I hope they never have to deny you your day in court. Screaming bloody murder…

Unlike the guy strangled to death by the NY police which I believe was outright murder.

I have to agree with the Darren Wilson decision.

Brown did appear to be going for a the policeman gun. Trying to take a deadly weapon is in my books justification for shooting.

My list for justification is:
Police can Shoot if suspect is:

Firing off a weapon
Has drawn gun
Reaching for a gun
Drawing or brandishing a Knife in close proximity of another human.
In control of unauthorized explosives.
Has hostages.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That's what I'm wondering. Even our "regulars" that can usually be counted on to comment early and often about anything race related seem to be MIA on this.

Then again, it's been less than 24 hours and MSM hasn't broken out their 24/7 coverage of it yet so I guess there's still time.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The Justice Department obviously feels that there was not enough evidence to get a guilty verdict either, hence no charges.

Thats for the courts to decide, not some 'Grand' Jury, DA, or "Department".

I hope they never have to deny you your day in court. Screaming bloody murder…

Not really. It's up to the investigating agency to determine whether they think they can make a case out of something.

People think the court system is jacked up now, let's see how it looks when we have to send every last incident to trial, regardless of what an investigation turns up.

Face the facts...


The Officer was a scared of a teenager.



Don't know about anyone on ATS, but personally, charging or not, 250 pound or not, 6ft 3 or not...

Brown would have unconscious after running into a headbutt or a right hook...


The trigger happy shouldn't be given a badge...



Size is not important, as much as some people here would like to think or make out...
Especially when it comes to a teenager.


& anyone 28yrs old and above will know if they have big teenage brothers or aquantances, that theyre a soft target.


For an officer who should have at least a smidgen of self defence training in unarmed combat...

Man whatever.

originally posted by: intrptr

Thats for the courts to decide, not some 'Grand' Jury, DA, or "Department".

And since there was no evidence there will be no need to go to trial.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
For an officer who should have at least a smidgen of self defence training in unarmed combat...

Why would anyone want to engage in close quarters physical combat when there are numerous instances of one punching killing another person?

a reply to: Shamrock6

It's up to the investigating agency to determine whether they think they can make a case out of something.

Roight. The police investigated themselves. The pick and choose 'evidence' and un crossed 'testimony' presented to the grand jury by one side behind closed doors… the antithesis to an open trial.

Anything but that.

Only an open trial can suffice in the light of so much controversy and animosity on the part of the people of Ferguson.

I know, Bwah Wah… the people lost. Get over it. Just making my statement about it. Now I will accept the "decision" as opposed to a verdict. What choice was Ferguson given?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And since there was no evidence there will be no need to go to trial.

Ummm, body in morgue riddled with cop bullets 'not evidence', got it.

a reply to: intrptr

Meh. Speaking of picking and choosing facts and evidence, the FBI has no problem laying charges and seeking indictments against local law enforcement. They've done it before and will do it again.

You've said, repeatedly, that unless something is introduced into court during a trial, it doesn't count as evidence. So really, you're saying that everything should be sent to trial because unless it's presented during a trial, YOU don't accept it.

As I said before, if people think the courts are jacked up now, let's see what it looks like when every last thing is sent to trial and just do away with the whole indictment process entirely.

Due process? Fifth amendment? Meh, who needs 'em!

a reply to: Shamrock6

You've said, repeatedly, that unless something is introduced into court during a trial, it doesn't count as evidence.

'Evidence' is presented at trial, both sides having a chance to review it with expert testimony before a jury selected by both sides. Not in every case either, don't put that on me. I am only discussing what happened in Ferguson.

Due process? Fifth amendment? Meh, who needs 'em!

Just a badge and a gun, huh? When all we have is "officers" enforcing the law, the result is a police state. And a bunch of resulting cover up.

Did you take an oath to uphold the constitution when you "swore in"?