“Remember: it’s not a lie if you believe it.”
Two Democratic presidential candidates recently observed the fifth anniversary of Michael Brown’s death by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Mo. — a case that sparked the Black Lives Matter movement as well as days of unrest locally.
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., tweeted, “Michael Brown’s murder forever changed Ferguson and America.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., tweeted, “5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri.”
Of course, being the reliably liberal propaganda outlet it is, Politi”fact” immediately gets to work weaving its rhetoricomagical smokescreen to obscure the hard truth:
After these tweets came out, PolitiFact heard from numerous readers who asked us to check whether Harris and Warren were correct in calling Brown’s death a “murder.”
There is no question that Wilson killed Brown, and there’s strong evidence that it was not accidental.
In discussing the case with legal experts, however, we found broad consensus that “murder” was the wrong word to use — a legal point likely familiar to Harris, a longtime prosecutor, and Warren, a law professor.
In fact, two other Democratic senators with law degrees now running for president — Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand — more accurately referred to it as a killing.
That said, experts who have studied police-related deaths and race relations said that focusing too much on the linguistics in controversial cases comes with its own set of problems.
It’s all just the usual mealy-mouthed bullshit, twisting and warping and dissembling in order to Keep Lefty Hope Alive. Just one problem (bold mine):
As discussed above, Darren Wilson has stated his intent in shooting Michael 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 assaulted Wilson at the SUV, never attempted to gain control of Wilson’s gun, and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive. Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of Witness 101, there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. Even if Wilson was mistaken in his interpretation of Brown’s conduct, the fact that others interpreted that conduct the same way as Wilson precludes a determination that he acted with a bad purpose to disobey the law. The same is true even if Wilson could be said to have acted with poor judgment in the manner in which he first interacted with Brown, or in pursuing Brown after the incident at the SUV. These are matters of policy and procedure that do not rise to the level of a Constitutional violation and thus cannot support a criminal prosecution.
Because Wilson did not act with the requisite criminal intent, it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt to a jury that he violated 18 U.S.C.§ 242 when he fired his weapon at Brown.
For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed.
Should be, right enough—but won’t, not as long as scurrilous, Democrat-Socialist hacks think there’s still a skoche of political mileage to be wrung from it.
The above lancing of this boil of suppurating Leftist falsehood is from the official DoJ report on the matter (PDF link). That, mind you, would be the Obama junta’s own DoJ, under the control of one Eric Holder at the time. Which matters greatly because, given what we’ve all now seen of how deeply the rot and corruption sown by Obama in those parts goes, it’s clear they would NOT have balked at using even the flimsiest pretext to have Wilson brought up on murder charges if there had been one to be found. And it wasn’t just the Obama DoJ that could find no “there” there, either:
A Missouri grand jury also declined to indict the officer for the shooting. Normally when you have not one but two investigatory bodies, one of which had political reasons to be skeptical, nonetheless conclude that a homicide was justifiable then by definition it’s not properly described as “murder.” But if PolitiFact took that view, it would risk being seen as insensitive to police shootings by people whose opinion it values.
AP is being way too gentle with the scoundrels, as far as I’m concerned. Fact is, Politi”fact” is trying to help their Democrat-Socialist partners in crime perpetuate a useful lie—a particularly destructive and dangerous one, at that. There’s only one possible thing to be gained from continuing to burnish this tawdry deception, and that only for those who consider advancing the careers of Democrat-Socialist political hacks by fraudulent means any kind of “gain” in the first place. For the rest of us, we’ll have to reckon with the likelihood of being burned by the flame they’re stoking for purely partisan purposes.