The decade's most triggering comedy
Presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden portrayed Michael Brown as the victim of a police shooting on Sunday — the sixth anniversary of Brown’s death in Ferguson, Missouri — despite the fact that the Obama-Biden Department of Justice determined that officer Darren Wilson had acted out of “self-defense.”
“It’s been six years since Michael Brown’s life was taken in Ferguson — reigniting a movement,” Biden tweeted. “We must continue the work of tackling systemic racism and reforming policing.”
It's been six years since Michael Brown's life was taken in Ferguson — reigniting a movement. We must continue the work of tackling systemic racism and reforming policing.
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) August 9, 2020
The report from the Obama-Biden DOJ stated:
As detailed throughout this report, the evidence does not establish that the shots fired by Wilson were objectively unreasonable under federal law. The physical evidence establishes that Wilson shot Brown once in the hand, at close range, while Wilson sat in his police SUV, struggling with Brown for control of Wilson’s gun. Wilson then shot Brown several more times from a distance of at least two feet after Brown ran away from Wilson and then turned and faced him. There are no witness accounts that federal prosecutors, and likewise a jury, would credit to support the conclusion that Wilson fired at Brown from behind. With the exception of the two wounds to Brown’s right arm, which indicate neither bullet trajectory nor the direction in which Brown was moving when he was struck, the medical examiners’ reports are in agreement that the entry wounds from the latter gunshots were to the front of Brown’s body, establishing that Brown was facing Wilson when these shots were fired. This includes the fatal shot to the top of Brown’s head. The physical evidence also establishes that Brown moved forward toward Wilson after he turned around to face him. The physical evidence is corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses.
The report states that “several witnesses stated that Brown appeared to pose a physical threat to Wilson as he moved toward Wilson” and that those witnesses were “corroborated by blood evidence in the roadway.”
The report states that there was “no credible evidence” to refute Wilson’s account of what happened:
Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson’s account and are consistent with the physical evidence. Even if the evidence established that Wilson’s actions were unreasonable, the government would also have to prove that Wilson acted willfully, i.e. that he acted with a specific intent to violate the law. As discussed above, Wilson’s stated intent for shooting Brown was in response to a perceived deadly threat. The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson under Section 242 would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true – i.e., that Brown never punched and grabbed Wilson at the SUV, never struggled with Wilson over the gun, and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive. Not only do eyewitnesses and physical evidence corroborate Wilson’s account, but there is no credible evidence to disprove Wilson’s perception that Brown posed a threat to Wilson as Brown advanced toward him.
The report repeatedly states that throughout the different stages of the incident, as it progressed, the “evidence establishes that the shots fired by Wilson” were “in self-defense and thus were not objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”
Wilson was recently subjected to a second investigation by St. Louis County Prosecutor Wesley Bell, who announced last month that he would not charge Wilson.
“This is one of the most difficult things I’ve had to do as an elected official,” Bell said. “Although this case represents one of the most significant moments in St. Louis’ history, the question to this office is a simple one: Could we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown he committed murder or manslaughter under Missouri law? After an independent and in-depth review of the evidence, we cannot prove that he did.”