Federal civil rights charges unlikely against police officer in Ferguson shooting

[branford]

76. You clearly only skimmed my post and may quite a few assumptions yourself.

First, I didn't say all evidence was unreliable, just primarily eyewitness testimony, which is the majority of what we've seen and heard because these witnesses have chosen to speak with the press, something that prosecutors usually hate because any statements can be used for cross-examination to impeach the witnesses or demonstrate that the witnesses were inappropriately coordinating their testimony. I can assure you that the witnesses that we have yet to hear from will likely have the greatest impact and credibility, regardless of whether they support Brown or Wilson.

Second, I never even remotely stated that the shooting was not "something being amiss." My comments concerned the difficult evidentiary and due process burdens necessary to achieve a criminal conviction, and that federal civil rights charges must meet even higher and more difficult standards. Simply, even if Wilson committed a morally heinous act, that does not mean he broke the law (state or federal), and even if he broke the law, that does not mean the government can prove its case it a court of law. We don't operate with mob justice.

Third, focusing and relying upon one piece of evidence like the recording you reference, without knowledge of all the other evidence and witnesses, is foolish and irresponsible. For instance, you claim that Brown definitely had his hands up when he was shot. However, the autopsy reports (both the country's and family's) casts serious doubt on that assertion, as well as many other claims by some of the known witnesses. There is a lot about the incident we have yet to learn.

Fourth, you've clearly and explicitly decided that a provable crime has occurred before most of the evidence has been released, no less subject to scrutiny, and made clear that you would not consider contrary evidence or question the officer's purported guilt. So, yes, that is the very definition of unfairly prejudicial. You, or anyone, is certainly entitled to their opinions and preconceived notions, justified or not, but those who lack an open mind, refuse to accept that the officer is presumed innocent, and are unwilling to objectively review only the totality of admissible evidence to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, will not, and should not, ever serve on a jury. The District Attorney and AG Holder will need sufficient evidence to convince people who've not already made up their minds, a difficult task that you appear to take completely for granted.