2020 Democrats Honor Michael Brown, Peddle ‘Hands Up Don’t Shoot’ Narrative

Hands Up Don't Shoot AFP_Getty
AFP/Getty Images

Many 2020 Democrat candidates tweeted out a message marking the five-year anniversary of Michael Brown’s death Friday, peddling the false “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” narrative and accusing the police officer of “murdering” Brown – a narrative that has been proven to be patently false, even by the Obama-era’s Department of Justice.

Michael Brown – a burglary suspect – was fatally shot by Officer Darren Wilson in 2014 after Brown charged him and attempted to take his gun. His death triggered the violent riots in Ferguson in 2014. The left largely touted a false narrative that Wilson shot him while Brown had his hands up. The autopsy report, however, corroborated Wilson’s story, suggesting that “Brown did indeed attempt to take Wilson’s gun, that Wilson shot him in the hand over it, and that Brown charged Wilson with his hands down,” Breitbart News reported.

Despite that, five years later, Democrats continue to peddle the blatantly false narrative, with some going as far as accusing Officer Wilson of murder.

“5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) wrote Friday.

“I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on,” she added:

“Michael Brown’s murder forever changed Ferguson and America,” Sen. Kamala Harris concurred.

“His tragic death sparked a desperately needed conversation and a nationwide movement,” she added. “We must fight for stronger accountability and racial equity in our justice system”:

“Michael Brown should be alive today,” Sanders wrote, implying that Officer Wilson did something immoral by acting out of self-defense. “Five years after his death, we must finally end police violence against people of color”:

More:

Despite the 2020 candidates’ insistence that Officer Wilson’s actions were unwarranted, the Department of Justice did not see it that way.

According to the Obama-era’s 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.

The left’s insistence upon touting the false narrative led to clashes and sheer upheaval in cities across the nation.

.

Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.