Obama Administration Accused of Leaking Stories To Prepare For The Rejection Of Criminal Charges Against Officer In Ferguson Shooting

1408390089660_Image_galleryImage_Officer_DARREN_WILSON_pic1408392017717_Image_galleryImage_Piaget_Crenshaw_who_livesA former Missouri police chief is publicly saying that the Justice Department is actively leaking reports that it has found insufficient evidence to support federal charges against Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. There is certainly a long and controversial history of the Justice Department leaking stories to the media to pressure targets or to prepare the public in otherwise secret or confidential investigations. While threatening witnesses and others over any disclosures, the Justice Department does not hesitate to make such leaks for political purposes. The question is whether the recent uptick in leaks is such a campaign. There has been an increase in such stories coming from unnamed Justice sources and former St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch says that the evidence has supported the officer on a number of points, including a struggle within the cruiser.

Fitch says that the Administration is seeking to “coordinate leaks to the media, and to start getting some of the facts out there to kind of let people down slowly” because they have concluded that charges are “probably very unlikely.”

While he is not required to appear before the grand jury and the vast majority of targets do not appear on advice of counsel, Wilson appeared for hours. The New York Times reports that he gave an account of a struggle inside of the car and a sharply different account from the statement of Michael Brown’s friend, including an autopsy that says that Brown was shot at close range consistent with the officer’s account. The Times reports that forensics tests showed Mr. Brown’s blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson’s uniform. Wilson also reportedly has photos of injuries to his face and neck following the struggle.

There are many who believe that the Obama Administration is signaling that no charges will come from the investigation — with many preparing for the possible unrest and violence that may follow such an announcement.

Source: CBS

162 thoughts on “Obama Administration Accused of Leaking Stories To Prepare For The Rejection Of Criminal Charges Against Officer In Ferguson Shooting”

  1. The prediction above was that if there was no evidence against Darren Wilson, the mob would still want his head.

    There was no way to predict what the actual outcome of the investigation was going to be until it was completed. Hence the need to wait for the investigation.

    I am curious what the final report will read. Because since it still hasn’t been released, we still don’t know.

    1. Karen, you definitely have the right attitude! But, some Ferguson residents have already threatened riots over the Grand Jury, if they don’t indict. And Al Sharpton will be there. I hope people listen to the facts, but that hasn’t been their history. Obama needs to support the verdict and ask for calm. Assure them Justice has been done.

  2. It’s just as predicted. This case has been gone over with a fine toothed comb by every official imaginable, including partisan hacks, and yet the cop has not been charged. So the people with egg on their faces are coming up with sorry excuses for why he’s still guilty.

    Their irresponsible actions could lead to the murder of an innocent cop. Comments like those already led to riots and unrest, injuries and property damage in Ferguson. All those chants, “Who do we want? Darren Wilson? What do we want him for? Dead!” That was engendered by reading about and hearing those inflammatory comments BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION WAS COMPLETED. Good for you.

    Deal with the facts, or take responsibility for what you incite.

  3. Carylyle:

    Do you honestly believe that if Michael Brown tried to surrender, and the cop shouted, “Too late” and executed him, that Liberal political hack Eric Holder wouldn’t have prosecuted him?

    If Eric Holder can’t find SOMETHING to charge him with, then this cop was maligned.

  4. Forensic expert urges caution on Michael Brown autopsy analysis
    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/forensic-expert-says-michael-brown-autopsy

    Excerpt:
    Details from an official autopsy on slain teen Michael Brown that were leaked to reporters could bolster his killer’s claim of self-defense. But just hours after the details were published, one of the experts whose analysis was central to those claims told msnbc that her analysis of the findings had been taken out of context.

  5. Carleton: The state statute, if any one in the American Media Conglomerate would care to read it, gives the policeman broad use of force when there is a fleeing felon. I cited the statute above. I did not write it. I am saying that cops in Missouri may rely on the statute. In the Zimmerman case where Z the civilian shot Trayvon Martin as Trayvon was beating Z’s head into the concrete there was a wide discussion about “stand your ground laws”. Here, in the Ferguson case, the Media is The MOB. The Media wants to have Wilson prosecuted because the dead guy is black. They yak about him being an unarmed kid and just going about his business in a ghetto.
    I am a civil rights lawyer and I worked in the South for the little guys being lynched. I do not like a mob of any sort. Now we have a Media Mob trying to tell a Grand Jury that they must indict or the Mob will riot. And the Media will make money off of it.

  6. The Federal Government can’t run itself. When it sticks its biased nose in affaires des etats there can only be a bad outcome.

  7. Barkin Dog.

    Yes it’s clear Darren Wilson had a perfect right to execute Michael Brown to prevent him from successfully resisting arrest and subsequently committing a felony using the weapon of his 300 pound body or perhaps to prevent him returning with a rocket propelled grenade.

    Michael Brown had no right at all to expect Darren Wilson to stop firing just because he had turned around and tried to surrender. Once a policeman acquires the right to use deadly force against a suspect the suspect has no right to expect that any act of submission on his part will terminate the right to use deadly force. Mike Brown, you’re too late snigger snigger snigger, bam! bang!, bang!

  8. What we have is mob justice making its way in America again. The civil rights acts were passed in order to curb mob justice. A state agent and indeed even the Governor may not try to influence a Grand Jury to indict or not indict a person. Here is my draft of a Complaint against Jay Nixon.

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
    CENTRAL DIVISION

    DARREL WILSON, individually,

    Plaintiff,

    vs.

    JAY NIXON, individually and in his
    Official Capacity as Governor of the
    State of Missouri,

    and,

    JOEBLOW, individually and in his
    official capacity as press and public
    affairs aide to Governor Nixon,

    Defendants.

    COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

    PARTIES

    1. Plaintiff Darren Wilson is a citizen and resident of the City of Crestwood, Missouri, and the United States of America.
    2. At all times referred to herein Defendant Jay Nixon is a resident of the State of Missouri and is Governor of the State of Missouri. He is sued individually for damages for the acts set forth herein and he is sued in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Missouri for claims for declaratory relief and injunctive relief as set forth herein
    JURISDICTION

    3. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983, 1985 and 1988 and the, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Court has jurisdiction of this action under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1985 and 28 U.S.C. Sections 1343 and 1331. Plaintiff further invokes the pendent jurisdiction of this Court to hear and decide claims arising under state law.
    FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
    4. On or about August , 2014, plaintiff was on duty as a police officer for the City of Ferguson Missouri and was located on _______ street in Ferguson at approxmately _____p.m. At such time he observed two individuals walking down the center of the street side by side in a manner and place which was dangerous for themselves and blocking or interfering with traffic. The two individuals had fled a crime scene where they had committed the assault and strong arm felony of a food store less than ten minutes prior to this and were in flight from a felony. Plaintiff was seated in his patol car, rolled his window down and address the two pesons asking them to vacate the center of the road. Whereupon Michael Brown assaulted the officer through the door of his vehical and entered the vehical and struggled for the officer’s handgun. The handgun fired in the vehical and Brown retreated but then while in the street turned and charged the plaintiff in an assault. Plaintiff fired his pistol at Brown in an attempt at self defense and as a result Brown was struck by bullets and died on the scene.
    5. The St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney initiated an investigation into the situation and convened a Grand Jury pursuant to Missouri law, in St. Louis County.
    6. On or about the following day a series of mob scenes took place in Ferguson and other areas of the St. Louis metropolitan area and such mob scenes were exascerbated by media coverage by nations television outlets. Numerous persons were video and audio recorded on national and local television screaming for the prosecution of plaintff for murdering a black child in broad daylight and other such hysterical mob actions.
    7. On or about August , 2014, Defendant Jay Nixon appeared on national television and joined the mob action and called for and demanded the indictment and prosecution of plaintiff.
    CAUSES OF ACTION -COUNT I- CONSPIRACY
    8. Defendant Jay Nixon’s conduct was acting under color of law and as an agent of the State of Missouri and such was violative of plaintiffs civil rights and particularly his right to due process and equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and his right to a fair hearing before a Grand Jury to determine whether he should be indicted in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and 1985. The following provisions of Section 1985 were specifically violated and caused damage to plaintiff:
    (1) Preventing officer from performing duties

    If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;

    (2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror

    If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;

    (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
    If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the
    highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

    9. Defendant Nixon and Defendant Joe Blow conspired to effectuate the deprivation of plaintiff’s civil rights and right to a fair treatment and hearing by the Grand Jury and later by a Petit Jury in violation of the aforesaid statutes.
    WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants from speaking or engaging in acts to effect or intimidate the members of the Grand Jury of St. Louis County or members of any candidates for Petit Jury of St. Louis or any other county of this state in the matters concerning the death of Michael Brown.
    COUNT II- DAMAGES
    10. As a direct and proximate result of the malicious, brutal and outrageous conduct of Defendants as aforedescribed, plaintiff has been subjected to threats by mobs, threats of improper indictment by the Grand Jury, threat to his health and welfare.
    11. The acts of Defendants as aforedescribed were intentional, wanton, malicious, oppressive, reckless, and callously indifferent to the rights of Plaintiff, thus entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages against the individually named Defendants.
    12. If Plaintiff prevails, he is entitled to an award of attorney fees pursuant to
    42 U.S.C. Section 1988.

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants Nixon and JoeBob, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in an amount which is fair and reasonable, and for punitive damages, plus costs of this action, attorney’s fees, and such other relief as the Court deems fair and appropriate under the circumstances.

  9. There is a small motel in our area that was built in the late 1940’s. Back when they were called motor courts. Because it is older looking, small rooms, each with a carport next to them, concrete block construction…..the tourists don’t want to stay there. They have about 15 units. Really old and retro looking.

    It was sold and a woman from Germany bought it. Henrietta. So even though it is now Section 8 in a way…..it is actually pretty cool. First of all….Henrietta runs a VERY tight ship. The motor court car ports have been turned into small patios where the residents can sit, read etc. Some of them have a lot of hanging plants and seem like a nice place to relax.

    As to tight ship. She had the residents out doing yard work. Repairing the split rail fences. Painting. Planting landscaping and watering. It seems some of the people have some skills and she is using them!!! As a result, the place is neat….in a German disciplined way……and tidy. The residents toe the line and do NOT cause problems. Henrietta will not stand for it. Nein!! So far everyone seems pretty happy. Including their dogs. Which Henrietta makes sure that they are leashed when walking and has had the residents build a dog run for them.

    In a way, you can see pride of ownership. I am not a fan of Section 8, but this one seems to be working out well for the residents and the community…so far….isn’t objecting.

    Maybe we should get Henrietta to run the Section 8 system.

  10. Apropos of nothing. My maternal grandfather probably built many of the brick buildings in Ferguson in the 1920-30’s. He was a brick layer and had a building company. My parents met and got married in Ferguson. My paternal Grandmother owned and operated the local newspaper, also 30’s to mid 40’s. She was a printer. (feminist before it was even thought about!!!) I believe the paper was called the Town Talk. My paternal Grandfather was the town veterinarian.

    I feel very sad for what once was a beautiful vibrant town, which is now basically a Section 8 slum.

  11. Missouri Revised Statutes
    Chapter 563
    Defense of Justification
    Section 563.046

    Law enforcement officer’s use of force in making an arrest.
    563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.
    2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.
    3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
    (1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
    (2) When he 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
    (a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
    (b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
    (c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.
    4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
    (L. 1977 S.B. 60)
    Effective 1-1-79

    Now, I could not put any of the above sentence in bold here. So let me repeat what is lawful use of deadly force by Darren Wilson against dead guy here:

    A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
    (1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
    (2) When he 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
    (a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
    (b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
    (c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

    The Grand Jurors must enter a No True Bill if they find that Darren Wilson reasonably believed that Brown had committed a felony, attempted to commit a felony, was attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon (Wilson’s own weapon when he fought over it in the car) or that Brown may otherwise (not with Wilson’s gun) endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

    How would you vote?

  12. II read some comment above about “White Privilege”. Well there is also something called “Black Privilege” and Michael Brown the 18 year old (right to vote) 300 pound fleeing felon was exercising Black Privilege when he turned off West Florissant and was walking down the middle of the street with his co felon. Yes when you run a neighborhood with your other hoods you demonstrate your power by walking down the middle of the street. When he smacked the cop in the face that was what they call Game Busters. It is part of the hoodie sport.
    What Ferguson needs to do is secede that neighborhood off and let them govern themselves. They could elect a Mayor on the Section Eight Platform. They could tax themselves to pay for the policing necessary in that crime zone. Or choose not to police themselves.

    In Missouri, a police officer who shoots a person has a defense to any charges and that defense is clearly set forth in statute. I will print the short statute in my next comment here. This statute makes Stand Your Ground laws look lame. I am not opposed to this statute but this law is why Darren Wilson will not be indicted by the Saint Louis County Grand Jury and the Saint Louis County Prosecutor is in charge of bringing the facts there, NOT some Ferguson Prosecutor as someone above stated.

    The reason that this Canfield neighborhood is so full of thugs like big adult Michael Brown is that it is filled with multi unit housing for the welfare cheats who refuse to work. I ask that all the people who criticize Ferguson, ask a real estate developer to build several of these housing projects on your town turf. How about Kennybunckport or Martha’s Vineyard? Yeah, you snide bigots out there who would not know a Section 8 project from a high rise for high fallutens out on Long Island.

Comments are closed.