Justice For Michael Brown: Best Hope Is For Federal Case Against Darren Wilson


Will Michael Brown, who was 18, get his day in court or will Darren Wilson be pre-acquitted by McCulloch and The New York Times?

[Speaking Truth To Power]

After two months, Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson is finally telling his story of why he killed 18-year-old Michael Brown on August 9.

And, the story is a variation of one we’ve heard over and over again—of a White policeman who, supposedly, shot an unarmed Black man because he “feared” for his life.

Is this standard story—used repeatedly by trigger-happy, racist police all over the United States—the precursor of a St. Louis grand jury fix to absolve this killer cop from being held to account for his murderous actions?

Remember, after the alleged encounter in the car he ran after Brown, firing shots after him and then shot and killed Brown after he turned around. Where is the “self-defense”?

On October 17 The New York Times published an article parroting the primary talking points for the police apologists—who always think police are never wrong whenever they maim or murder any Black person.

Officer Wilson claims he was in fear of his life when he fired upon Michael Brown in the police car—because he was supposedly “pinned by” Brown. Some want us to focus on this dubious claim and forget the fact that Brown was not killed during the altercation at the police car.

He was killed several yards away, where, multiple witnesses say Officer Wilson fired upon Brown, even as he apparently attempted to surrender.

Because of the fallacious fable now being spun by Officer Wilson, we’re supposed to believe this shooting was justified. And news outlets that should know better, like The New York Times, give us stories that are more propaganda press releases of police apologists than anything.

The Times story tells us much about the perceptions of those backing Officer Wilson’s version of events. But where are the perspectives of the seven witnesses who say Wilson chased Brown and then shot him dead as he had his hands in the air?

How can The New York Times the quote from unnamed witnesses that as of now the Justice Department doesn’t have enough evidence for civil rights violation charges without robust rebuttal?

Don’t the multiple witnesses who say Brown was surrendering before he was cut down matter at all? If so, why is that? Is it because these witnesses are Black people and, presumably, are not to be regarded as credible as Wilson and the unnamed Times sources?

In nearly any other case, where so many witnesses largely agree on what happened, an indictment would be a foregone conclusion. However, when the defendant is a White police officer who killed a Black man, then, the normal rules don’t seem to apply.  Even in the Staten Island case, with the video taped evidence of NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo’s killing of unarmed Eric Garner with a chokehold on July 17, there’s still no indictment.

Clearly, America’s so-called criminal “justice” system, and major media, devalue the lives of Black people—and prejudiced police and the bullies who hide behind badges are fully aware, and, take advantage of this.

What is really going on here then?

For months, the Ferguson grand jury has been meeting—but it’s clear, from the very beginning, that prosecutors didn’t really want an indictment. Prosecutor Bob McCulloch, and other officials, are no doubt seeking a creative way to justify the miscarriage of justice that they’ve been predestining and planning.

Why else would they be engaging in all these delays—not to mention the curious occurrences that have happened in this grand jury?

For one thing, prosecutors are basically leaving it up to grand jury members to decide which charges, if any, should be logged against Officer Wilson. Keep in mind, this is taking place as they dump numerous evidentiary documents into the lap of the grand jury—with seemingly little legal guidance from prosecutors.

Why would Mr. McCulloch do something like this—if not, to muddy the waters and set the stage for a non-indictment of Officer Wilson?

Now we’re hearing, through the New York Times and targeted leaks, of Officer Wilson’s claims that he was justified in killing Brown. This is happening right after reports of the head-scratching decision to allow Officer Wilson to tell his side of the story to this grand jury—without the benefit of cross-examination, where he could be grilled and rebutted by the evidence and other witnesses.

Something stinks here.

Remember when the courts in this country wouldn’t allow Blacks to testify against White killers of Black people? Are we living in the 21st Century, or, in the time of the segregated Jim Crow South? How do they plan to dismiss the accounts of all those who have said Michael Brown was shot down while he was surrendering?

Officer Wilson, conveniently, waited two months before he decided to tell this tall tale—most likely so he could assess all the witness statements and craft his story accordingly. If he was “pinned” how did he manage to get off several shots—especially, if he was the lone officer driving the patrol car?

Which hand did he shoot with? Many questions need answers here.

Why couldn’t Officer Wilson have told this same story in front of the cameras and microphones two months ago? Why isn’t his long silence being looked at as an admission of guilt—and that he surely has something to hide? Shouldn’t police officers be held to a higher standard in instances like this?

The shady shenanigans going on here underscore why many people wanted Mr. McCulloch recused to begin with. Obviously, the fix has been in from the beginning. Mr. McCulloch’s prejudice in favor of police is setting up a non-indictment decision here.

This seems to be why they’ve been talking about contingence plans for riots, as was reported, and, why they have been even flirting with the idea of rendering the grand jury decision in January—in the hopes that the winter cold would quell any uprising, if this murderer is allowed to walk away free.

There have also been speculation that at least one of the prosecutors is a former police officer. Mr. McCulloch is also the son of a police officer who was killed by a Black man. How does that color Mr. McCulloch’s perceptions of Black men? Many people in the community have been making the argument that McCulloch has made many past statements showing his hatred for Black men.

And who is behind the leaking of the information to the New York Times and other media outlets that can be distorted while disregarding the overwhelmingly incriminating evidence from the moment Wilson stepped out of the car and started shooting after Brown as he ran away?

This is ever more compelling reason why the department of justice should intervene forcefully.

Reportedly, Officer Wilson has many other cases where he is supposed to work with these very same prosecutors— as a primary police witness against other defendants. This is compelling reason why a special prosecutor should always be appointed in cases like these.

Governor Jay Dixon and Democrats like Senator Claire McCaskill should be targeted, and, flooded with calls and e-mail messages by people expressing outrage about the proceedings in St. Louis.

The notion that there isn’t enough evidence to indict Officer Wilson and to let a trial jury weigh the evidence is preposterous. The Justice Department has rightly denounced these grand jury leaks that are trying to manipulate public opinion.

The powers that be in Ferguson and in Washington may not fully heed to the growing frustration festering in Black communities in regard to the systemic problem of police brutality and racism.

They are gravely mistaken if they believe Black people, especially, the younger generation, will continue to accept such brutality and indifference.

They saw the signs of what may come during the early stages of the protest in Ferguson this summer.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *