The DOJ and Darren Wilson

The DOJ released their report today on why they will not be prosecuting Darren Wilson. The report concludes that the shooting of Michael Brown was most likely justified, citing the favorable testimony of disinterested witnesses and the unreliability of the witnesses who said Michael Brown surrendered. They report includes a lot more testimony than the Grand Jury report and is pretty convincing.

Mataconis:

Given the available evidence, this seems like a proper decision by the Justice Department. Even leaving aside for the moment the question of whether or not one believes the state Grand Jury made the right decision in declining to indict Wilson on any charges at all in this case, there was quite simply no evidence that Wilson acted in a manner that even came close to violating Federal civil rights laws. Instead, this seems to be a police encounter gone wrong. If Wilson acted improperly, it doesn’t appear to have been out of any racial motive, and the evidence that has been released both in connected with the Grand Jury investigation and this investigation seem to make clear that Wilson’s use of force was, in the end, appropriate under the circumstances. Indicting him on Federal charges would have likely just led to an acquittal, and would have been an unjust application of Federal law.

I didn’t believe Wilson’s story because the idea of Michael Brown charging at him from so far away made no sense to me. But that now appears very likely to be what happened. People do stupid things, especially young male people.

There is one thing to note, however, from Ken White, a former prosecutor:

I find it remarkable because most potential prosecutions don’t get this sort of analysis. Most investigations don’t involve rigorous examination of the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses. Most investigations don’t involve painstaking consideration of the defendant’s potential defenses. Often investigators don’t even talk to potential defense witnesses, and if they do, don’t follow up on leads they offer. Most investigations don’t carefully weigh potentially incriminating and potentially exculpatory scientific evidence. If an explanation of the flaws in a case requires footnotes, you shouldn’t expect it to deter prosecution.

Instead, I’m more used to the prosecution assuming their witnesses are truthful, even if they are proven liars. I’m more used to contrary evidence being cynically disregarded. I’m more used to participants in the system stubbornly presuming guilt to the bitter end. I’m more used to prosecutors disregarding potentially exculpatory evidence that they think isn’t “material.” I’m more used to the criminal justice system ignoring exculpatory science and clinging to inculpatory junk science like an anti-vaxxer.

Why is this case different? It’s different because Darren Wilson is a cop. Cops get special rights and privileges and breaks the rest of us don’t. Cops get an extremely generous and lenient benefit of the doubt from juries. Nearly every segment of the criminal justice system operates to treat cops more favorably than the rest of us.

I would make two points of minor disagreement here. First of all, the reason this case was investigated so thoroughly was because of the national pressure that was brought to bear. The government was forced to explain, in great detail, why they were not going to bring a case. Of course, most of the time they don’t even bother. They don’t bring charges and we’re just supposed to accept that.

And that brings me to a second minor disagreement: it’s not just cops. Everyone who is in the system is treated differently than the rest of us. Just this week, David Petraeus was allowed to plead out to a misdemeanor for leaking the kind of information that would land most of us in prison for a felony. Hillary Clinton was revealed to have violated protocols and State Department rules, something that would ruin most people’s careers (and Clinton has a long history of breaking the rules and getting away with it). Seven cops and prosecutors were revealed to have lied their asses off in an effort to put an innocent man in jail and may face no consequences. More pot convictions were handed down to people who probably touched less of the stuff than our last three Presidents. The problem is more noticeable with cops because they are authorized to use deadly force and because of reflexive “thin blue line” defensiveness whenever a cop is accused of wrong-doing (although, to be fair, no cop will ever kill as many people as the State Department does with their unaccountable bungling). But this problem is general and it is widespread.

Darren Wilson didn’t shoot Michael Brown in the back. He almost certainly didn’t shoot him after he surrendered. But it’s hard to blame people for distrusting the system when it so often concludes that the people within are incapable of wrong-doing, be they cop, bureaucrat or politician. It’s hard to blame people for distrusting the system when it gives us a hell of a lot less benefit of a doubt, whether we’ve shot someone or made a mistake on our taxes. It’s hard to blame people for distrusting the system when it throws non-violent pot offenders in prison for half a century while concluding, almost instantly, that the people who seared a toddler did nothing wrong because they were acting on behalf of the state.

(And, in this particular case, it’s hard to blame people for distrusting the system when the DOJ has also released a report showing massive systematic racism in the city.)

I’m glad that Wilson will not be prosecuted for what now appears to have been a justified shooting. It’s one of the few things Holder’s DOJ has done right. But I wish this kind of skepticism was applied a lot more often and to people who are not cops, politicians, prosecutors, bureaucrats or political hacks.

Thrill (actually, Thrill’s sister; smarts clearly run in that family) made a very good point when the Grand Jury verdict was handed down:

My sister said it perfectly: “This is the wrong case to ask the right questions about”.

It’s now pretty conclusive that this was the wrong case. But let’s keep asking the right questions.

Comments are closed.

  1. richtaylor365

    I didn’t believe Wilson’s story because the idea of Michael Brown charging at him from so far away made no sense to me. But that now appears very likely to be what happened. 

    Glad to see you finally coming around since this is what I tried to convince you of in all the other Ferguson threads. Granted, neither of us were there, but there did exist a very clear pattern of behavior that Brown exhibited, the verbal threats at the scene, an unwillingness to comply with even the basic instructions by the other given for his safety, the all out attack on Wilson before he could even get out of his car, further verbal threats by Brown towards Wilson and then bull rushing him to further another attack, knowing (wrongly) that Wilson would not protect himself and shoot him.

    I find it remarkable because most potential prosecutions don’t get this sort of analysis.

    That’s what happens when the race hustlers get involved, more layers of scrutiny. If Brown was white/Wilson black/if Sharpton had stayed home/if Holder did not ride in on his horse even before the facts were in to inject his racial invective, this would have been like any other police shooting.

    It’s one of the few things Holder’s DOJ has done right.

    Not for reasons of his own doing, that nasty little thing called evidence, the high bar that exists to meet the standard, this is what got in his way, much to his dissatisfaction.

    And that brings me to a second minor disagreement: it’s not just cops.

     

    I would remind you that Officer Wilson, a highly decorated well respected and apparently highly dedicated officer, was physically attacked by a 300lb punk, almost had his gun wrestled away from him and shot dead, then had the same assailant rush him in a rage to do him more harm. Now factor this in, the guy did nothing wrong and was in actual fear of his life but now is off the force, jobless, losing an avocation that he loved. Bottom line, he does everything right and gets screwed in the process, and you write about no accountability of cops that do wrong.

    I guess we come at this from a different angle. I see cops getting disciplined all the time. In the last 6 months 2 stories that have filled the front pages of my local paper; one involves an onduty officer getting caught looking at an arrestee’s cell phone and downloading naked pics of her, the other story involved an off duty cop hiring a hooker in Vegas then subsequently getting his gun, badge and handcuffs lifted while he was sleeping, both officers (and the chief who investgated the lost gun) now out on their butts, forced to resign. I get that it is de rigueur to claim that cops get away with shit, most of them don’t and they pay a pretty high price for misconduct, as it should be. When you hold public office and have power of people by authority of that position, you should be held to a higher standard.

    Thumb up 3

  2. Hal_10000 *

    I think it’s amazing how all the wanna be forensics experts at Vox, NPR, LGF, Kos, etc. aren’t talking about this yet. They posted immediately on the DOJ report on racism. PBS created that completely bogus chart on the witness testimony. Nothing yet on this.

    Thumb up 2

  3. Hal_10000 *

     see cops getting disciplined all the time. In the last 6 months 2 stories that have filled the front pages of my local paper; one involves an onduty officer getting caught looking at an arrestee’s cell phone and downloading naked pics of her, the other story involved an off duty cop hiring a hooker in Vegas then subsequently getting his gun, badge and handcuffs lifted while he was sleeping, both officers (and the chief who investgated the lost gun) now out on their butts, forced to resign.

    Inconsistency is a huge part of the problem.  Small “embarrassed the force” stuff tends to get punished while big stuff doesn’t.  Take a look at Miami Gardens.  They just fired the chief for getting caught in a prostitution sting. Yet they don’t want to do anything about cops pointlessly and cruelly harassing a man for years.  It’s bizarre.

    Thumb up 0

  4. richtaylor365

    The civil liberties we are afforded in this great nation define us as a nation, and as such need to be protected. There is no greater threat potential than the beat cop who interacts daily with the citizenry. But I would remind you of 2 things; there is always 2 sides to the story and without both no probative value can be found, and fairness demands a thorough vetting on a case by case basis, broad brushes are useless in determining fact.

    Thumb up 0