A 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
BarkinDog
Dredd: What do you mean when you say: ” When Barking Dogs lie.”
Did I lie about something?
========================
Let a sleeping dog lie.
artFayDog here. I am on BarkinDog’s Dogalogue Machine and email. I agree with itchinBayDog. The employment of the word “lie” by Dredd has me agitated. If that was not intended to call BarkinDog a liar then Dredd ought to say so.
itchinBayDog here. Dredd. Dogs don’t lie. I am a “police enabler”. I want the police to protect my hearth, home and my four legged body. If some punk is robbing the QT up the street then I want him arrested. If he is doing the bully routine and walking down the middle of the street I want him to be told by a cop to move to the sidewalk, If the bully assaults a cop I want the bully to be arrested. If the bully goes for the cop’s gun I want the bully to be arrested and shot if necessary to effectuate the arrest. I want the cops to show up on the street with the law on their side and I do not like Mob Justice or Media Mob Justice. The Mob is calling for Officer Wilson to be indicted and charged with murder. The Media is with the Mob. If he is indicted I want all the cops in Ferguson to go on strike and then quit. Anyone who works as a cop in Saint Louis County is a chump if this cop gets indicted. Turn in your badges. Carry your guns. The place will not be safe for anybody, man or beast, sleeping dogs included.
There is a phrase: Let sleeping dogs lie. Generally the meaning is this: The phrase is said to warn someone that they should not talk about a bad situation that most people have forgotten about.
To transform the phrase into an allegation that barking dogs will not tell the truth has the dogpack riled up. My name happens to be BarkingDog. It is one word. I do not lie. I bark when on all fours. I growl when laying down and immediately get up to bark if I need to. I bark into this Dogalogue Machine and it interprets my dog bark into printed English here on the internet. I stand when I bark into the Dogalogue Machine. I poop in the front yards of those who call me a liar.
Dredd: What do you mean when you say: ” When Barking Dogs lie.”
Did I lie about something?
Sandi Hemming
Karen, you definitely have the right attitude!
…
===============================
Way right.
Just south of Wainwright.
DBQ, thanks for the inspiring story about Henrietta. Those German ladies are hard workers. And they don´t take nein for an answer. I know -, my mother-in-law is one. Honestly though, sometimes all of the window cleaning and front stoop washing wear me out. But it sounds like it is really doing Henrietta´s renters some good.
BarkinDog
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.
=========================
When barking dogs lie.
Well said bettykath.
Not that it matters to duh police and their enablers.
“Wilson’s Use of Deadly Force Would Be Unlawful Absent Imminent Deadly Threat
And there we have it. Despite the plain-language reading of §563.046 that a law enforcement can use deadly force to make an arrest when he reasonably believes the person making the arrest has committed a felony, in the aftermath of Tennessee v. Garner and subsequent changes to Missouri case law and jury instructions, the use of deadly force to make an arrest of a non-dangerous fleeing felon is not permitted under Missouri law.”
the link is provided above by Jack
excerpt (part of MO jury instruction):
06.14 JUSTIFICATION: USE OF FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
PART A–GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
One of the issues (as to Count _____) (in this case) is whether the use of force by the defendant against [name of victim] was lawful. In this state, the use of force (including the use of deadly force) by a law enforcement officer in making an arrest or in preventing escape after arrest is lawful in certain situations.
A law enforcement officer can lawfully use force to make an arrest or to prevent escape if he is making a lawful arrest or an arrest which he reasonably believes to be lawful. An arrest is lawful if the officer (reasonably believes that the person being arrested (has committed) (or) (is committing) a crime) (is executing an arrest warrant which he believes to be valid).
In making a lawful arrest or preventing escape after such an arrest, a law enforcement officer is entitled to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to effect the arrest or prevent the escape.
A law enforcement officer in making an arrest need not retreat or desist from his efforts because of resistance or threatened resistance by the person being arrested.
But in making an arrest or preventing escape, a law enforcement officer is not entitled to use deadly force, that is, force which he knows will create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury, unless he reasonably believes that the person being arrested is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon or that the person may endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay (emphasis added).
And, even then, a law enforcement officer may use deadly force only if he reasonably believes the use of such force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or prevent the escape.
PART B–SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS
On the issue of use of force by a law enforcement officer (as to Count _____), you are instructed as follows:
First, if the defendant was a law enforcement officer (making) (or) (attempting to make) a lawful arrest (or what he reasonably believed to be a lawful arrest) or [name of victim] for the crime of [name of crime] and the defendant reasonably believed that use of force was necessary to effect the arrest of to prevent the escape of [name of victim] and
Second, the defendant reasonably believed that [name of victim] (was attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon) (or) (would endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay) [emphasis added], and the defendant reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to effect the arrest of [name of victim], then the defendant’s use of force was lawful.
The state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entitled to use force as a law enforcement officer. Unless you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entitled to use force as a law enforcement officer against [name of victim], you must find the defendant not guilty (under Count ____).
As used in this instruction, the term “serious physical injury” means physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes serious disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part of the body.
DustBunny: Ferguson is not a complete Section 8 slum. In fact, there is a small area which Ferguson annexed years ago in which these Section 8 multifamily units were built. This area is East of West Florissant Road. Old Ferguson is far to the west on Florissant Rd. Drive around old Ferguson and you will see nice homes. There were many nice subdivisions built I the 50s which are still very nice. People jump to conclusions. They hear that the town is 70% black so they jump to the conclusion that it is all Section 8 slums. Went in dumb, come out dumb too. The Media Mob wants you to think that this is some Ghetto run by some White oligarchs. Not so. Go there and drive around. Ask that off planet guy who stayed out there a couple of months back, Beldar.