As expected, the Justice Department announced Wednesday that it will not prosecute former Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown. The case followed the same pattern that we saw him the Zimmerman investigation: a premature entry into the case, Attorney General Eric Holder making public comments assuring a federal response, a long investigation, and a leak from the Justice Department preparing people for the rejection of any charges. In both cases, some of us questioned the timing of the entry of the federal investigators and the weak basis for a civil rights investigation. (For a prior column, click here) In the end, the Justice Department found much of the same inconsistencies detailed by the grand jury and the police in the Ferguson case.
The Justice Department found that Wilson’s actions “do not constitute prosecutable violations under the applicable federal criminal rights statute.” Specifically, the report found “no evidence” to disprove Wilson’s testimony that he feared for his safety. Notably, while the state prosecutors were attacked for finding witness testimony to be conflicted and unreliable, the federal investigators found the same thing:
“Although there are several individuals who have stated that Brown held his hands up in an unambiguous sign of surrender prior to Wilson shooting him dead, their accounts do not support a prosecution of Wilson. As detailed throughout this report, some of those accounts are inaccurate because they are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence; some of those accounts are materially inconsistent with that witness’s own prior statements with no explanation, credible or otherwise, as to why those accounts changed over time.”
It would seem that some of these witnesses were not merely “inconsistent” but lying. However, the end result is the same. There was no basis for prosecution in the case.
Many viewed the early entry of the federal investigators into the case to be an unjustified and political move by Attorney General Eric Holder. At the time, Holder said he shared the same experience of profiling and abuse at the hands of police. As he did in the Trayvon Martin case, Holder sent in federal civil rights investigators before the initial investigation ended. Such federal investigations are ideally launched after state trials or, at a minimum, after an investigation is complete.
Now Holder is calling to lower the standard for civil rights prosecutions, a very worrisome prospect. Holder was clearly frustrated that he could not prosecute when he disagreed with the state prosecutors. Holder has long been viewed as hostile to federalism principles and this move would further erode the core police powers held by the states. Holder wants less of a barrier to federalizing such crimes — subjecting defendants to two alternative systems for prosecution.
The civil rights prosecutions should remain focused on their original purpose and should satisfy the current standard. The standard proof is high. It requires prosecutors to prove that a person used excessive force, willfully with the knowledge that it was wrong. It is important to remember however that this is just the standard for a civil rights prosecution. The same person is subject to an array of possible local and state charges. The standard reflected an effort to avoid precisely what Holder seems to want: a ready alternative for prosecution when the federal government disagrees with the results of state criminal cases or investigations.
Source: USA Today
For “Civil Rights,” Obama and Holder would prefer the college system of railroading young men in college accused of sexual misbehavior and sex crimes:
Presumed guilty, no evidence allowed, no defense allowed, never doubt the accuser/victim, pass sentence.
“Civil rights” is unconstitutional. Discrimination is the first step of freedom. Racism is a “moral” judgment just like religion. How can any American enjoy Freedom of Speech, Press and Assembly without the full Freedom of THOUGHT? Preposterous. All men were CREATED equal; after that, they are on their own. Bias was never the American thesis. “Freedom and self-reliance” say it all. Next case.
Complexity means revenue or “profiteering” for the “legal profession.” Why is it that exponentially more words are used in every single law and case than were used in the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights. The judicial branch believes it is the political and ideological legislative branch. The judicial branch can’t even comprehend it’s limited mandate is simply to “assure that actions comport with law.”
Liberals are so busy implementing the principles of the Communist Manifesto, they can’t even consider American Freedom and Self-Reliance; complete Freedom and literal Self-Reliance.
Wait a minute. That would be treason. Oops.
Issac, No one preaches more “us vs. them” than our own president.
When he’s wrong, he’s wrong. When he’s right, he’s wrong. And so it goes, one side against the other. This country has as its greatest bane the us and them structure.
Regarding lecturing, pontificating, and all around blithering and blathering, well……
It’s interesting that uniformed personnel killing civilians is not ever (rarely) called uncivil or barbaric. If it is done so, it is made clear that those persons are no longer a member of the organization we sponsor. They are some crazy, shady individual to not be trusted.
Parents of Michael Brown Announce Civil Lawsuit in Death
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, MARCH 5, 2015, 12:01 P.M. E.S.T.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/03/05/us/ap-us-killings-by-police-ferguson-brown-parents.html
ST. LOUIS — Lawyers for the parents of an unarmed, black 18-year-old who was fatally shot by a white police officer in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson said Thursday that they would file a civil lawsuit in Michael Brown’s death.
Attorney Daryl Parks said at a news conference in north St. Louis County that the City of Ferguson and former Officer Darren Wilson would be named in the wrongful death lawsuit, which they plan to file promptly.
The announcement came in response to the findings of a Justice Department investigation that charged the Ferguson police department with unfairly targeting blacks but cleared Wilson in Brown’s death.
Brown’s mother, Lesley McSpadden, and his father, Michael Brown Sr., attended the news conference at Greater St. Mark Missionary Baptist Church, but they did not speak nor take questions.
Parks said the DOJ report makes it clear there are “rampant, wholesale, systemic” problems in the Ferguson police department that need to “change soon for the safety of the citizens.”
He did not say specifically when the suit would be filed. He said only that, “soon means soon.”
Speaks to what “civil rights” law actually is in this country. Anything but civil or right… Of course Holder’s tenure as AG is mostly ignoble. The support of this terrible rule-of-law is consistent with the approach of not discussing the profane criminal justice system for poor people of color.
Holder deserves credit for bringing the gross police misconduct over a long period of time to light. As he said its not just in Ferguson. The piling on of charges and fines, the harassing of people because of how they “walk”, etc. etc. That report was chock full of police abusing their authority.
I am in Ferguson this afternoon. No arsonists yet. No National Guard out guarding either. The talk here in the Ferguson hangout is that they are forming a Ferguson Militia to guard themselves. Some were out today. They can open carry in Missouri. One guy had a tee shirt which says: A well regulated militia, being necessary to protect the 7-11, the right of Ferguson to bear arms shall not be infringed! The times they are a changing.
I’m trying to understand the concept of a “lower standard of proof for civil rights crimes.” Does that mean that he wants to base convictions on somenthing less than “beyond a reasonable doubt”? Or is he suggesting a different change, not to the standard of proof, but to the intent required in order to commit the crime, say, moving from the requirement of “willful” conduct to a requirement that the conduct be “reckless”? It lowers the bar, but is not really a change to the standard of proof.
While I was critical of the early federal involvement, when I read the grand jury transcripts (yes, all of them and all the witness statements that were posted on CNN) I realized that early federal involvement actually helped Wilson. It came out during the grand jury proceedings that it is not “per se a crime” to lie to a law enforcement investigator under Missouri law. Looking at the witness statements, it seemed that many of the stories changed when federal agents gave the witnesses their 18 U.S.C. sec 1001 warnings. Had the feds not done the interviews and gotten inconsistent statements (that is when faced with federal criminal liability, the witnesses admitted that their prior statements inculpating Wilson were false), there probably would have been probable cause to indict based on the uncontradicted statements of witnesses to the St. Louis County Police Department.
None of this provides any excuse for some of the conduct of some, maybe many, members of the Ferguson PD, but it does provide a cautionary example with respect to the all-too-common rush to judgment. I have not heard whether Darren Wilson was one of those officers who engaged in racist behavior; if he was, he deserves censure.
There seems to be some debate over whether DOJ’s report “cleared” Officer Wilson. DOJ is generally not in the business of declaring innocence, however, they came very close in this instance. The report said not just that there would be no prosecution, but that after consideration of all the evidence, they concluded that there was no probable cause to even take the matter to a grand jury. In other words, federal prosecutors concluded that there was no evidence that any crime had been committed. That’s saying a lot more than that the evidence was ambiguous and chances of winning were slight. The report actually said that, if there had been a prosecution, the Department’s view is that Wilson would have succeeded in obtaining a directed verdict from the judge at the close of the prosecution’s case.
I have to say that people like Eric Holder make me more sick of all this emphasis on civil rights. Our society needs to do an about face, and instead of talking about rights, we need to focus on the duties and obligations that we have as citizens toward one another.
I love it when folks lecture JT. I disagree w/ him on much, but I learned from my parents and a great coach, lecturing is counter productive. Make your disagreement succinct, and never pontificate. It is the least effective way to change how someone thinks. But, it does make the pontificator feel good!!
Thanks, PhillyT.
What is most unfortunate is that Eric Holder betrayed the public trust by making statements that sounded like Officer Wilson was guilty. He talked about suffering from similar racism and profiling. That was supposed to be anathema to the DOJ, where all of us are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. He made no such distinction. He contributed to the mob which has now ruined an innocent officer’s life, all for political gain. What a hack. Now he and all the rest who made ignorant prejudgements have egg on their faces, but Officer Wilson lost his job and will suffer the repercussions for the rest of his life. How would people feel if it happened to them? Driven out by false accusations and lies and a mob? Honestly, who would even want to be a police officer there? Here, we’re going to put you in harm’s way, but if a suspect attacks you, tries to grab your gun, and then charges at you, you’d better just roll over and die because the mob won’t let you defend yourself.
My problem isn’t that Holder investigated. My problem is what he said about the case, the timing of the investigation, and other actions which prejudiced the mob against Wilson.
Anyone who doubts that it was mob rule that led to the ruin of Officer Wilson’s career should take a look at the threads on this blog covering Ferguson and Zimmerman. Contrast the “I just know what happened” comments with their conspicuous, guilty silence here and on the Zimmerman outcome thread. They did their part, though, in getting a city burned by inflaming the mob with their “hands up don’t shoot” comments, which turned out to be a complete fabrication.
Worst AG in my lifetime. But, lowering the bar for virtually everything seems to be the hallmark of this Administration. Pandering is not governing.
If you have seen the emails circulated around Ferguson (see link), you realize there is a big problem there. This isn’t just black folks breaking the law. Racism is alive and, well, sick as ever in places like Ferguson and many others. The KKK has infiltrated police forces across the U.S. and they are getting away with murder.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2015/03/04/390725377/here-are-the-racist-emails-ferguson-officials-passed-around
Standards for criminal prosecution should always be high. Otherwise people can be prosecuted for the wrong reasons. You may not like or approve of the conduct of officer Wilson in this matter, but you are not supposed to prosecute people just because you don’t like them or because they did something you don’t approve of. You need to be able to prove that they committed a crime.
In a particularly difficult litigation matter against the IRS , a government attorney blurted out to me : ” your client is scum.” My response was that the internal revenue code taxes “scum” the same way it taxes everyone else and that if the IRS attorney would agree that my client owes no additional taxes, my client would agree that they were scum.
JT
This was and will continue to be a, ‘dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t’, situation. If Holder had not investigated the potential to prosecute, and he did not prosecute but ascertained if there was or was not sufficient mishandling of the situation by the police officer to prosecute, then he would have been more negligent of his duties to society.
The actions of the police officer, when compared to the allowable use of force by police officers in our society, when seen through the evidence available, and based on material facts, were warranted. However, the conditions which may or may not have lead to the atmosphere in Ferguson and other communities are sorely in need of investigation and attention.
What Holder did was an appropriate job on surfacing the conditions and exonerating the officer, not an easy thing to do, something that takes courage, and something that the US is in dire need of.
I appreciate, as do most others on this blog, your watch dog position as legal eagle. However, a bias accumulated from previous opinions directed at an official or situation should not stop you from applauding when things are done correctly and in the best interests of our society.
You bring up the legal position of separation of federal and states systems and the worry of the federal infringing on those of the state. It seems that throughout the history of the US it has been the federal government that has stepped in to bring this or that state out of positions of injustice regardless of how legally righteous they were.
AG Eric Holder wants to lower the standard for civil rights prosecutions. Then reopen the Al Sharpton & Tawana Brawley case.
We have read a lot about the underlying systemic problems in Ferguson.
See the NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/us-details-a-persistent-pattern-of-police-discrimination-in-a-small-missouri-city.html?emc=edit_th_20150305&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=68493858
What the Ferguson PD (and other Missouri police departments) did was wrong.
Also wrong were the white politicians who either tolerated or facilitated that behavior.
But. The black people of Ferguson had the means to correct those wrongs.
Ferguson was one election away from a complete revamp of a bad system.
With 67% of the population, the blacks of Ferguson had the absolute means to vote out every white politician and replace them with a different slate of politicians.
Cops respond to what their paymasters want – those who don’t respond will quickly be unemployed.
Instead of taking responsibility for their bad situation (and fixing the problem), many blacks chose to loot their community stores.
I don’t have much respect for the people of Ferguson – white or black.