Why Are 2020 Candidates All Tweeting That Michael Brown Was Murdered?
Freedom Wire

Why Are 2020 Candidates All Tweeting That Michael Brown Was Murdered?

For some strange reason all of a sudden, the 2020 Democratic candidates are all tweeting about Michael Brown being “murdered”.

Michael Brown was killed after he tried to charge at an officer in Ferguson, Missouri 5 years ago after robbing a store. But for some reason now, all the Dems think it’s cool or something to push the agenda that he was murdered.

Elizabeth Warren tweeted,

“5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on.”

Kamala Harris tweeted,

“Michael Brown’s murder forever changed Ferguson and America. His tragic death sparked a desperately needed conversation and a nationwide movement. We must fight for stronger accountability and racial equity in our justice system.”

Beto O’Rourke tweeted,

Five years ago, Michael Brown was shot dead by a police officer. In the years since, we’ve heard too many names, too many similar stories, to count. In each, we are reminded of an idea as urgent, and as ignored, today as it was when Michael was killed: Black Lives Matter.

Kirsten Gillibrand also tweeted,

“5 years ago, a Ferguson police officer killed Michael Brown, an unarmed teenager. He shot him 6 times. Nothing will bring Michael back, but we can’t stop fighting the injustice done to his family and so many others—and until we do better, we’re failing them.”

What’s their angle here? It should be blatantly obvious…they’re pushing for gun control in the wake of mass shootings and trying to boost their campaign at the same time. Except no one is boosting anything because they’re all saying the same thing and not making progress.

Here are the facts…Michael Brown was not murdered as recorded in the DOJ report:

“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. Cf. Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430–31 (8th Cir. 1997) (violation of internal policies and procedures does not in and of itself rise to violation of Constitution).

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.”

Photo Credit: YouTube

Written by Jon Archer - August 12, 2019