The “don’t shoot” myth

On the fifth anniversary of the death — note that word — of make-believe martyr Michael Brown, two Democratic presidential candidates chose to go willfully insane and trash the facts of the infamous case that gave rise to the fallacious “Hands up, don’t shoot” rallying cry.

That’s quite a mouthful. Let me break it down: In tweets, both Eilzabeth Warren and Kamala Harris described Brown’s death as murder.

Murder is a synonym for homicide. For there to be a murder, there must be a murderer, and in the Brown case, the other party was police officer Darren Wilson. The white police officer did shoot Brown, an 18-year-old African-American who earlier had strong armed a local merchant and stolen cigarellos, a theft that was captured on video.

Michael Brown (left) and Darren Wilson (CBS News)

The hulking Brown then walked  in the middle of a street in Ferguson, Mo., when Wilson rolled up in his SUV  and attempted to question him. A struggle ensued when Brown reached inside the police car and tried to grab Wilson’s gun.

Brown fled after Wilson’s gun was discharged, then turned around and moved back toward Wilson, who felt threatened. He fired, striking Brown six times, and killing him. 

Brown never raised his hands and said, “Don’t shoot.” It did not happen. 

Some of you are so deeply invested in the myth, you won’t believe me. Maybe you will believe Jonathan Capehart, a liberal, African-American member of the Washington Post editorial board. Flat out, he says if you believe Brown raised his hands and tried to surrender, you are believing a lie.

Capehart exhaustively cites chapter and verse. 

Based on the evidence, the Ferguson police department found Wilson blameless. Sure, you say, what do you expect? I understand the skepticism of the cops investigating the cops. 

So the U.S. Department of Justice swooped in. This was not just Barack Obama’s DOJ, it was Attorney General Eric Holder’s DOJ and I imagine him directing his investigators to find the evidence to nail Wilson to a cross.

Lord knows they tried, but they failed. After tedious, detailed interviews with witnesses and scouring DNA and forensic evidence, DOJ found no case that could be made against Wilson. Given the circumstances, his actions were lawful.

DOJ did make a case against the Ferguson police department for actual bigotry. That was an important finding. 

When the two candidates tried to outwoke each other, they directed attention to a lie, and away from the real problem of racism that exists in some (many?) American police departments.

Warren and Harris — herself a former prosecutor trying to make like a boa and shed her prosecutorial skin — grasped at a straw as wrong as the deluded souls who think Mumia Abu-Jamal didn’t murder police officer Daniel Faulkner.

For there to be a murder, there must be a murderer. 

In Daniel Faulkner’s case there was one.

In Michael Brown’s case, there was not. 

18 thoughts on “The “don’t shoot” myth”

  1. Excellent, impartial commentary that serves to undermine any semblance of objectivity on the part of Warren and Harris. It’s unfortunate that presumptive presidential candidates are not committed to the truth when their potential opponent is recognized as a liar, hypocrite and fraud.

    Good job, Stu. May your newly-launched Web site thrive and prosper.

    I know that I’ve had too many concussions, and that explains my many faults. Forgetfulness, poor sense of direction, names to name a few of the losses. BUT ! Telling outright lies was never part of me. I don’t ever remember politics being this nasty. Sure, back in the day, the pols would stretch the truth, not lay in on this thick.
    Two of my favorite words. Accountability and Responsibility. There is very little of either in today’s world. To prove it, as in this Ferguson case. Confront the subjects with documented truth and they refuse to accept it, and either continue on with their rant or move onto another twisted subject.
    good job, pallie. get healthy

  3. Well written piece Stu and thanks for telling the truth of a story that has been mangled for years.

  4. Hi Stu — First and foremost, I hope that all is well with you. Having written many stories about police violence, I think your piece is solid — well reported, well reasoned and important.

    1. Perfect timing from the Editor of the dying Inky to massage his BFF while North Philly erupts and attacks Law Enforcement.

      Only idiots would continue to support “journalists and their politician partners in crime” who have made a career presiding over the scum pond of Philadelphia.

      Even without Editorial Restraint, Stu, no mention of this open sore that has made World News and the disgrace you have promoted.

      1. @Jason . . . WTF? How has Stu promoted attacks on law enforcement? Quite the opposite I would argue.

      2. Truthfully, I don’t WTF you are talking about. I am reflexively pro-cop, but only GOOD cops. Where there are bad cops, I have called them out, as has Marimow.
        Am i conversing with one of the bad ones now? Sounds like it.

  5. Stu,Well written & appreciated for exposing the condtiued pandering by politicians and their proxies .

  6. Facts are stubborn things. You should submit this piece to the Inquirer for Sunday’s Commentary. The real shame of this and other false narratives (e.g. police are on a crusade to assassinate black men) is that it emboldens racists — both white and black — and turns off whites (like me) who would otherwise support efforts to eliminate racial profiling.

  7. I had forgotten all about this item. Thank you, Stu, for bringing a clear light to it, as well as some Clorox to get out the stains.

  8. People will believe what they want to believe, the truth and evidence be damned. Consider the Holocaust deniers.

    But kudos for this column — and especially for the comment about Abu Jamal. What that man and his supporters have done to the Faulkner family is downright evil.

Comments are closed.