Any harsh critics of the Ferguson Grand Jury big enough to back off in the face of the DOJ report?

[Nye Bevan]

As detailed throughout this report, several witnesses stated that Brown appeared to pose a physical threat to Wilson as he moved toward Wilson. According to these witnesses, who are corroborated by blood evidence in the roadway, as Brown continued to move toward Wilson, Wilson fired at Brown in what appeared to be self-defense and stopped firing once Brown fell to the ground. Wilson stated that he feared Brown would again assault him because of Brown’s conduct at the SUV and because as Brown moved toward him, Wilson saw Brown reach his right hand under his t-shirt into what appeared to be his waistband. There is no evidence upon which prosecutors can rely to disprove Wilson’s stated subjective belief that he feared for his safety.

......

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 for otherwise, as to why those accounts changed over time. Certain other witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts, admitting that they did not witness the shooting or parts of it, despite what they initially reported either to federal or local law enforcement or to the media. Prosecutors did not rely on those accounts when making a prosecutive decision.

While credible witnesses gave varying accounts of exactly what Brown was doing with his hands as he moved toward Wilson – i.e., balling them, holding them out, or pulling up his pants up – and varying accounts of how he was moving – i.e., “charging,” moving in “slow motion,” or “running” – they all establish that Brown was moving toward Wilson when Wilson shot him. Although some witnesses state that Brown held his hands up at shoulder level with his palms facing outward for a brief moment, these same witnesses describe Brown then dropping his hands and “charging” at Wilson.

.....

Furthermore, there are no witnesses who could testify credibly that Wilson shot Brown while Brown was clearly attempting to surrender. The accounts of the witnesses who have claimed that Brown raised his hands above his head to surrender and said “I don’t have a gun,” or “okay, okay, okay” are inconsistent with the physical evidence or can be challenged in other material ways, and thus cannot be relied upon to form the foundation of a federal prosecution.28 The two most prominent witnesses who have stated that Brown was shot with his hands up in surrender are Witness 101 and Witness 127, both of whom claim that Brown turned around with his hands raised in surrender, that he never reached for his waistband, that he never moved forward toward Wilson after turning to face him with his hands up, and that he fell to the ground with his hands raised. These and other aspects of their statements are contradicted by the physical evidence. Crime scene photographs establish that Brown fell to the ground with his left hand at his waistband and his right hand at his side. Brown’s blood in the roadway demonstrates that Brown came forward at least 21.6 feet from the time he turned around toward Wilson. Other aspects of the accounts of Witness 101 and Witness 127 would render them not credible in a prosecution of Wilson, namely their accounts of what happened at the SUV. Both claim that Wilson fired the first shot out the SUV window, Witness 101 claims that the shot hit Brown at close range in the torso, and both claim that Brown did not reach inside the vehicle. These claims are irreconcilable with the bullet in the SUV door, the close-range wound to Brown’s hand, Brown’s DNA inside Wilson’s car and on his gun, and the injuries to Wilson’s face.

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf

In the light of this report, perhaps those who accused the grand jury of being racist cop-lovers who ignore the evidence were being a little hasty? Or is the DOJ just as flawed as the grand jury was?

[NCTraveler]

1. There are reasons to question the actions of the GJ in Ferguson....

even if one felt Wilson feared for his safety. Your question, then the highlight, are not even close to being mutually exclusive.

[Savannahmann]

2. No.

Wilson had pepper spray on his belt. He had a billy club on his belt. He probably but not definitely had a taser on his belt. He had non lethal options that he utterly rejected instead going for the final solution. Wilson knew that Michael Brown was unarmed, because Michael Brown had not pulled a gun on him earlier. So there was no reason, no logical reason to put any rounds into Brown. But Wilson was enraged because his authoritah had been flaunted and disrespected.

The DOJ may not find it criminal, but I do. The DOJ may not be able to prosecute, but the lawsuit will bring that out, and Ferguson is liable to be bankrupt paying off the Brown Family. The DOJ report showing the rampant racism and sexism running rampant through the department is enough to push the award into seven figures.

[HappyMe]

5. Exactly.

The DOJ standards are way different than the GJ.

[Nye Bevan]

6. I think it's valid to criticize the actions of Wilson very harshly,

while at the same time recognizing that under the law there was no probable cause for a criminal prosecution for his actions.

[CatWoman]

11. I simply can't understand why some can't comprehend this

great post, by the way.

It seems (to me, anyway) that some here refuse to give up on that bullshit narrative that Brown turned into the Hulk and went on a rampage towards this officer.

and, call me stupid or naive, but the last time I looked, jaywalking doesn't carry the death penalty.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

57. When a punk like Wilson looks at a kid like Brown he sees a crazed black person running amok

But the word wilson used and uses isnt black person, we know they use the N word.

Cops like that, and there are tens of thousands of them, are scared of minorities and should not be cops.

Or they can be cops but only for white people. As soon as they see a non white person, they shit their pants.

[XemaSab]

68. Do you deny that he doubled back towards Wilson?

[uponit7771]

16. RIGHT ON!! Wilson is PART of the cartoonishly racist FPD, he wasn't a contract hired LEO ...

... he exibited this attitude in his GJ testimony by saying "those people are anti police" (mine) ...

Yeah, you bastard, cause your racist pd keeps murdering their children

[tishaLA]

3. A lack of evidence to prosecute Wilson

just means that the DOJ didn't think it could prove a case against him.

Also: the grand jury could have reached the correct decision and still be a clusterfuck, which includes the DA bringing people he knew to be liars to testify AND having an assistant provide the wrong statute on the use of deadly force to those on the grand jury.

[peacebird]

4. I think that we see far too many civilians killed by police over minor infractions

It does not help that the police are always found to have behaved correctly when using deadly force.

I think our police forces, across the country, need to rethink the escalation to deadly force. And need retraining to enforce the idea that their main purpose is protect and serve the citizens. I am tired of the militaristic approaches used in no knock raids, flashbangs in babies cribs, innocent people being killed for being in the wrong place. It has to end. Police need to de-escalate.

[Spazito]

7. The Grand Jury Process used by Bob McCullogh was...

a fucking farce. No amount of trying to whitewash it based on the DOJ report is going to work, imo.

[bravenak]

8. The burden is too high in federal civil rights violation cases.

Any case involving police gets treated the same way almost. There would never have been a protest if the Police and government did not treat black people like they were on a plantation.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

46. That seems to be what AG Holder is saying as well

I'm not sure what he would want to change...he says he'll discuss it before he leaves office.

[guillaumeb]

9. the Grand Jury, as opposed to the "Petit Jury" which hears criminal cases

is convened to investigate. It is totally a prosecutorial tool. The defendant has no right to representation and the prosecutor alone decides what evidence to present and what questions are asked. In the Michael Brown case, as in all Grand Jury cases, the District Attorney rules supreme.
The percentage of Grand Juries that return indictments is nearly 99%. The link below is one of many regarding this matter:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/24/the-single-chart-that-shows-that-grand-juries-indict-99-99-percent-of-the-time/

Given that the Ferguson Grand Jury did not return an indictment, two conclusions present, in my opinion.
1) There was no probable cause to indict or
2) There was probable cause but the Grand Jury process was subverted.

Given that Grand Juries rarely indict police officers, and given the background of this case, I will choose number 2.

The DOJ is not a neutral actor in this case. To criticize the Grand Jury process in this case opens up larger questions about the process that the DOJ has no reason to open.

[Nye Bevan]

12. I challenge anyone to read the full DOJ report

and still believe that there was probable cause for an indictment.

[uponit7771]

15. NO DOUBT there was, any OTHER citizen would've been thrown UNDER the jail...

... by now.

20 Witness's say damn near the same thing...

The killer...

Something different....

I read the GJ testimoney from Wilson... Have you?

[Nye Bevan]

21. "20 Witness's say damn near the same thing... "

You obviously have not read the report.

Wilson’s version is further supported by disinterested eyewitnesses Witness 102, Witness 104, Witness 105, Witness 108, and Witness 109, among others. These witnesses all agree that Brown ran or charged toward Wilson and that Wilson shot at Brown only as Brown moved toward him. Although some of the witnesses stated that Brown briefly had his hands up or out at about waist-level, none of these witnesses perceived Brown to be attempting to surrender at any point when Wilson fired upon him. To the contrary, several of these witnesses stated that they would have felt threatened by Brown and would have responded in the same way Wilson did. For example, Witness 104 stated that as Wilson ran after Brown yelling “stop, stop, stop,” Brown finally turned around and raised his hands “for a second.” However, Brown then immediately balled his hands into fists and “charged” at Wilson in a “tackle run.” Witness 104 stated that Wilson fired only when Brown moved toward him and that she “would have fired sooner.” Likewise, Witness 105 stated that Brown turned around and put his hands up “for a brief moment,” then refused a command from Wilson to “get down” and instead put his hands “in running position” and started running toward Wilson. Witness 105 stated that Wilson shot at Brown only when Brown was moving toward him. These witnesses’ accounts are consistent with prior statements they have given, consistent with the forensic and physical evidence, and consistent with each other’s accounts. Accordingly, we conclude that these accounts are credible.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

58. So what, 5 out of over a hundred witnesses supported him?

And these are witnesses who weren't actually interviewed immediately after the event, but came forward at a later date, like the witness who was shown to have not possibly have been anywhere near at the time of the shooting, yet whose evidence was presented to the grand jury?

I tend to think you kind of need to interview witnesses immediately, and not just accept the word of anyone who shows up out of the blue and tells you they were a witness at a future date unless they can provide proof that places them at the scene.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

69. And you need to ignore the numerous witnesses who lied

of which there were many, apparently. People who showed up and concurred with something they heard. People who got their five minutes on tv.

The witnesses you are left with are the witnesses whose testimony matches the physical evidence. From those witnesses you get some variations in what they think they saw, but their testimony all agrees with the physical evidence for the most part.

I was pretty convinced that Holder runs an honest department, so I figured he wouldn't bring charges against Wilson. I was also pretty convinced that he would find plenty of wrongdoing in the Ferguson Police Department. It needs to be brought under federal supervision for the next ten years, imo. School districts that refused to integrate were put under court order for decades, and it's time for the same thing to happen to various police departments around the country.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

70. Exactly. It doesn't matter which 'side' they're on if they weren't

actually witnesses at the point in time, with their own ears and eyes.

I still think the 'physical evidence' can be interpreted in several ways though, which is why a body camera on Wilson would have been far better 'physical evidence' to show exactly what happened.

[pintobean]

18. The only people reading that report

are the ones who really want to know what the DOJ actually found. It completely vindicates McCulloch and the grand jury. It's also going to be a huge problem for the plaintiff in a civil case.

[Nye Bevan]

23. I have a feeling that any civil case will be settled fairly quickly for an "undisclosed amount".

The plaintiffs witness list has mostly been exposed as liars. And the defendants don't want any more bad publicity and will be eager to put an end to it. My guess would be that a sum in the low six figures would do the job.

[pintobean]

25. And the lawyers claim victory and milk the publicity. /nt

[Nye Bevan]

30. And take 30%, of course (nt)

[SickOfTheOnePct]

47. True on all points n/t

[guillaumeb]

20. post 8 by Bravenak makes the point well

In any Title 7 case, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show discriminatory intent. A prima facie case is not sufficient. Title VII was discussed in: McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). The major elements of a Title VII case were laid out. Space prevents a real discussion, but, in brief:
1) a claimant must have suffered a loss,
2) a claimant must prove that he/she is a member of a protected class,
3) a claimant must then prove that the actions themselves were discriminatory, and
4) finally, a claimant must prove that there was specific intent to discriminate. The mere fact that the act was discriminatory is insufficient. Intent must be proven. A very high bar to reach.

I am speaking as a former Union Steward who handled many EEOC cases for my local union, 1300 members, as well as instructed my fellow stewards on EEOC matters. I am not an attorney but I have argued many times before Ad-Law Judges.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

10. Looks like no one gives much of a damn about mewling an apology to you and a racist pig.

I can't answer your question as you wrote it, because it has nothing to do with how "big" one is or isn't. But if you'll permit me to amend your question to "Any harsh critics of the Ferguson Grand Jury ready to back off in the face of the DOJ report?", I'll be happy to answer with "fuck no".

Further questions?

[Nye Bevan]

13. Who said anything about apologizing to me or a racist pig? (nt)

[bluesbassman]

29. Who exactly were you expecting your request to be directed to then?

You asked the question. Was it the impugned GC? The bloodied hands Officer Wilson? Or were you just looking for vindication of your position on this case?

[Nye Bevan]

32. Those who reflexively accused the grand jury of being racists for not handing down an indictment nt

[bluesbassman]

33. It's obvious from the OP who you're asking the apology from...

What's not so obvious is who you think an apology should directed to.

[uponit7771]

14. No, not at all matter of fact Wilson STRENGTHENED the civil suite... No one in their RIGHT MIND

... is going to believe Wilson over 20 other witness's who agree to damn near the same thing...

Browns hands were NO WHERE around his waistband BEFORE Wilson's first shot after Brown took off running

Wilson also bold faced lied about shooting Brown FROM the back...

Bold faced lied...

That will also come out during the civil trial

[Johonny]

22. I think most intelligent people understand the DOJ, the grand jury, and a civil trial

all have different motivations, different ranges of charges being considered, and different levels of evidence. Mixing apples and oranges is neither enlightening or grounds for most DUers to apologize for things they understand that the poster appears to be unaware of. I think enough professional prosecutors weighed in that this cases approach to the Grand Jury was not typical and I think most people understand, just like the DOJ, that the case would be hard to prove in a criminal court. I think most people, like the DOJ, understand the riots and reaction to the shooting stem from a system that is not trustworthy for very real reasons.

[Lurks Often]

56. You didn't read the report

According the article http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/darren-wilson-is-cleared-of-rights-violations-in-ferguson-shooting.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=1

The FBI failed to find ANY of those 20 witnesess credible, read the last paragraph

"No witnesses had accounts that were credible and pointed toward Mr. Wilson’s guilt, the investigators wrote. Nine witnesses did not fully contradict or corroborate the officer, while the accounts of 24 others were dissected and shown, the federal investigators said, to lack credibility. These included witnesses who admitted they had not actually seen the events."

[uponit7771]

67. did not contradict which part?

[Lurks Often]

72. Maybe I need more coffee, but your response needs more detail

The DOJ report is saying NONE of the witnesses that they interviewed and who's statements supported Brown, were considered credible, either because they were not even present, their testimony did not match physical or forensic evidence or because they contradicted themselves.

I find the statement from the article that "Nine witnesses did not fully contradict or corroborate the officer" to be at best poorly phrased and worst somewhat confusing. My interpretation is that the statement so of those 9 people contradicted themselves as some point or that their statements, to at least some degree, supported BOTH Wilson and Brown.

[HappyMe]

17. Here's a big indictment of racist asshats.

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf


I think this behavior also extends out to the mayor, and the judges in the local court system.


Here's a fine example.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026323121

[4139]

19. The costs of the "hands up, don't shoot" lie is tragic.

[uponit7771]

24. ....yeap, seeing that Wilson was a part of the cartoonishly racist PD there shouldn't have to be

... a chant.

It should be implied that the reason Brown was STOPPED, looking at the DOJ data, was in part because he was black...

There shouldn't have to be people chanting anything, Wilson's ass should be in jail...

Justice will come

no doubt

[Logical]

26. LOL, So basically this is a "I told you so" post? Classy! nt

[pintobean]

28. I think it's more

"waiting for all the facts" wasn't such a bad thing.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. Well-justified, I think. N.T.

[Blue_Tires]

27. Four quick points:

1. The actions of the prosecuting attorney were still indescribably strange, controversial, unprecedented, and borderline negligent from a professionalism point of view...

2. Ferguson's PD was still proven to be rife with corruption, racism, racial profiling, and ineptitude...

3. This still fails to explain why so many cops are in "fear for their life" around unarmed minority suspects, while white suspects (even armed ones) are regularly apprehended alive...

4. Even though RWers (and a few useful idiots here) are trying their damnedest to do so, Wilson supposedly being in the cleared by the DOJ doesn't erase the other hundreds of incidents where black folks are gunned down under highly questionable circumstances...

[Nye Bevan]

31. I actually agree with most of your points.

There is clearly a huge problem with cops in general, and the Ferguson PD in particular, being biased against minorities. In this particular case, however, there was clearly not probably cause (let alone evidence beyond a reasonable doubt) to convict Wilson of a crime. My point is that those who accused the grand jury of being a bunch of racists because they did not hand down an indictment were mistaken.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. The statistical case is unanswerable; most of the anecdotal ones are highly questionable.

American police kill are significantly more likely to kill you if you are black than if you are white.

In most of the individual cases where a black man is shot, the police can make a case that they made the right call, and would have done the same if he had been white (not the same thing, of course, but that's a different issue).

With a few exceptions, it's not possible to prove that *any one* of those individual claims is false - you can show that lots of them may be false, or are probably false, but "are probably" is not grounds for a prosecution.

But when you look at *all of them together*, it becomes a statistical certainty that a good many of them are false, even though you can't be certain which.

The conclusion is that the evidence is probably not strong enough to indite many individual police officers, but probably is strong enough to indite the culture of many of America's police forces, and make an unanswerable case for significant effort on culture change and retraining.

[Nye Bevan]

38. Good post.

And while I am not usually a huge proponent of affirmative action, I think there is a good case to be made for it in hiring more minority cops in places like Ferguson. In Northern Ireland renaming the RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) to the PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland) and instituting an affirmative action program to hire Catholics has been very successful in restoring community trust in the police from Catholics. This strikes me as a parallel kind of situation to that in Ferguson.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. The other obvious thing from the UK to point at is MacPherson. N.T.

[Nye Bevan]

50. I am not familiar with that.

I googled it and kept getting Elle (so not a total waste of time).

[Donald Ian Rankin]

51. The MacPherson inquiry into the Metropolitan police found them to be "institutionally racist".

It was held in response to the murder of Stephen Lawrence, after it was felt that the Met's response was grossly inadequate, probably for reasons of racism.

Sir William MacPherson carried out a major official inquiry into the Met, and found them to be "institutionally racist".

This triggered something of a sea-change in UK policing - after 20 years of "my police force right or wrong" from Thatcher and Major, it was the first time the government had recognised that the police force had a serious problem and needed to change.

The Met is still at least somewhat institutionally racist, but much less so, and is making genuine efforts to improve, as are other police forces

[Nye Bevan]

54. Ah, thank you (nt)

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

71. Regarding Point No. 1.

Holder could not find enough evidence to bring charges, and the local prosecutor also knew he would not have enough "credible" evidence for a prosecution.

So he went through a sham grand jury when there probably wouldn't have been any convening of a grand jury at all.

Regarding Point No. 2.

The government needs to appoint a federal judge to review all actions of the Ferguson Police Dept. just like the feds did with public schools who refused to integrate. Some school systems were under court supervision for decades. Imo, Ferguson should be under court supervision for the next decade. This kind of crap does not end overnight.

Regarding Point No. 3.

That's a tough one. Racism, plus real life experience explains it, imo. White criminals tend to be mixed throughout a large part of society, whereas most of black criminals tend to live in inner city neighborhoods. Knowing that blacks commit a much higher percentage of violent crimes relative to their 13% of the population, people who understand statistics realize the danger is just greater. Especially when you consider that a lot of that violence is committed by a subset of that 13 percent. sigh

Regarding Point No. 4

Yes, a lot of young black men are gunned down under questionable circumstances. No doubt about that. If we go back to point No. 2, we could see some improvement in that. However, as long as point no. 3 remains, you won't see as much improvement as we would like.

And My Own Point No. 5

Legalize Pot. Re-work the sentencing on some of the more dangerous drugs, especially for users. Let's stop filling our prisons with drug users.

[Rex]

34. Yes, because Eric Holder was the DA in the case...oh wait no he wasn't.

Sorry, but the DA in the case (hint NOT Holder) is a racist POS that let a white cop go scott free. I guess you just want to defend him for some strange reason and pulled in Holder to hide behind.

[pintobean]

37. No, Holder is the AG in the case

and you really ought to read his department's report on their investigation and findings in the case of the Michael Brown shooting. It vindicates McCulloch and the grand jury.

https://cbsstlouis.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/doj-report-on-shooting-of-michael-brown.pdf

[Starry Messenger]

39. I'm sure Michael Brown's family is sad you feel wronged. nt.

[Nye Bevan]

41. I never felt wronged.

But I thought the grand jury members were wronged when people accused them of being racists and ignoring the "evidence" when they declined to hand down an indictment.

[sendero]

40. The way the systems is SUPPOSED to work...

... is that if there is ANY reason to think a crime has occurred, the grand jury indicts so that an ACTUAL TRIAL, not some report written by who knows who for whatever reason, AN ACTUAL TRIAL where BOTH SIDES are allowed to make their case and a JURY OF OUR PEERS decides the outcome.

I might not think the Grand Jury and/or DA stinks on ice, but I definitely don't think they did their job, this report notwithstanding.

THE WORDS IN THIS REPORT ARE NOT EVIDENCE, THEY ARE CONCLUSIONS. A JURY SHOULD DECIDE ON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

45. No, that's simply untrue.

The standard for a grand jury to indict is that they think that there is "probable cause" to believe that a crime has been committed, not "any reason at all".

In general, prosecutors only take cases even that far when they think that there is a realistic chance of a conviction.

I wasn't a fly on the wall in the Ferguson prosecutor's office, but my guess is that they realised that there wasn't sufficient evidence to justify prosecuting, but didn't want to take the heat for the decision not to proceed alone, and so they passed the buck to the grand jury, whereas if the case hadn't been high-profile they'd simply have let it drop.

The reason the grand jury procedings were so unusual may have been a desire to avoid prosecuting Wilson, when normally a prosecutor would have done so. But I think it's more likely that it was because of a desire to avoid being blamed for not prosecuting Wilson, when normally a prosecutor would have taken the decision not to do so unilaterally.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

63. "Any reason to think that a crime has occurred"

is not the legal standard and should not be the legal standard.

If you think prosecutors unfairly target blacks right now, wait until they get to use your standard.

[Nye Bevan]

66. +1.

Those DUers who are all gung ho to make it easier for the authorities to send people to prison have probably not fully thought through what the undesirable consequences might be.

[Spider Jerusalem]

43. Nope.

The grand jury process was a tainted farce. Wilson was allowed to testify before the grand jury to give his side of the story. That's highly unusual; the accused is rarely brought before a grand jury especially in cases where the prosecutor is seeking an indictment. The porpose of a grand jury is to discover whether there are grounds for indictment, not to decide whether the accused has justification for his actions (that's what trials are for).

[mythology]

44. Some will and some won't

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

Sometimes inconvenient facts just make people dig in more.

Some people will look at the larger picture of racial injustice and overlook that it doesn't seem to have been involved in this specific instance.

But in the end the larger picture does matter. We do have a criminal justice system that is systematically biased against the poor and against minorities. That needs to be addressed regardless of whether racial bias was involved in the death of Michael Brown.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

48. Very well said n/t

[LittleBlue]

49. This is what happens when law is discarded for the court of public opinion

The media was irresponsible with this case.

[pintobean]

53. I don't know about that.

The media put out a lot of facts that supported this outcome. Most of those stories were dismissed immediately, and anyone bringing those stories here were attacked as racists and trolls.

[Lurks Often]

52. The facts don't match up with what they want, so the facts are some how wrong

I'm just waiting for the conspiracy theories and rationalizations.

I think people need to read what the Atty. General said:
Paragraph 9 “The facts do not support the filing of criminal charges against Officer Darren Wilson in this case,” Mr. Holder said. For those who feel otherwise, he said, “I urge you to read this report in full.”

and according to the last paragraph in the article about the report:
"No witnesses had accounts that were credible and pointed toward Mr. Wilson’s guilt, the investigators wrote. Nine witnesses did not fully contradict or corroborate the officer, while the accounts of 24 others were dissected and shown, the federal investigators said, to lack credibility. These included witnesses who admitted they had not actually seen the events."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/darren-wilson-is-cleared-of-rights-violations-in-ferguson-shooting.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=1

[Fred Drum]

59. conspiracy theory #1

grand juries indict cops at a ridiculously minuscule percentage due to a corrupt justice system

should be no problem debunking that one

[Lurks Often]

60. Which has nothing to do with the DOJ report

so take your moving the goalposts and changing the subject tactics somewhere else.

[Fred Drum]

61. conspiracy theory #2

darren wilson got caught up it conspiracy theory #1

[Lurks Often]

64. Yawn

Nothing to say about the DOJ report regarding the shooting?

[upaloopa]

55. No not me

I believe the witnesses I saw and heard on MSNBC right after the shooting who all told a similar story and who all did not know of or speak to each other.
The Grand Jury included lies and witnesses who were not even in town when the shooting took place.
There never should have been a Grand Jury. That in itself was part of the play to acquit the cop. He should have been suspended and an impartial local investigation, not Federal which has tougher rules of evidence, should have taken place.

[Baitball Blogger]

62. Of course he feared for his life.

After years of abusing black people in Ferguson the police would have created their own grounds for paranoia.

Minorities are well aware of the double offense they have to tolerate. Not only are they abused more often, but the people who are putting hands on them are expecting a reaction.

[ARMYofONE]

65. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force.