The right wing "race baiters" are still celebrating the decision not to prosecute Darren Wilson. I suppose that this should have been expected given the fact that we are talking about a white police officer killing an unarmed black teen.
This is, after all, a black vs. white issue now. It shouldn't be this way. It should be a right versus wrong issue. But sadly, this is where we are in America. How you feel about the killing of Michael Brown depends largely on the color of your skin.
Wingnuts like Ben Carson blame the president for this. “I actually believe that things were better before this president was elected. And I think that things have gotten worse because of his unusual emphasis on race.” Duh! But I submit to you, my Seventh Day Adventist friend, that race relations got worse because Barack Obama was elected president. Only someone blinded by their ideological ignorance and cluelessness could not see this.
But back to Darren Wilson. He is now at the start of his rehabilitation tour and ABC won the lottery to get the first interview. (A FOX NEWS gig is sure to follow.)
In that interview he said some interesting things: Michael Brown was "aggressive and combative" and he was worried that he would "kill" him. He also said that he has a "clean conscience" because he did his job right.
In Darren Wilson's mind, Michael Brown had to be killed, because he was "aggressive" and he (Wilson) was looking into the face of a "demon".
The grand jury believed Darren Wilson, and not the witnesses who gave conflicting accounts. It was truly a jury of his peers.
"What did happen, according to Wilson: Brown stopped running at a light pole and confronted Wilson. The cop said he yelled at the youth to get on the ground. “When he looked at me, he made like a grunting, like aggravated sound and he starts, he turns and he’s coming back towards me,” Wilson recalled. “His first step is coming towards me, he kind of does like a stutter step to start running. When he does that, his left hand goes in a fist and goes to his side, his right one goes under his shirt in his waistband and he starts running at me.”
Wilson opened fire. He missed a few times. But he also hit Brown, who “flinched.” What Wilson remembered as “tunnel vision” came over him, homing in on Brown’s right hand in his waistband. “I’m just focusing on that hand when I was shooting.” But the shots, Wilson said, didn’t deter Brown, who continued to charge toward him.
“He was almost bulking up to run through the shots, like it was making him mad that I’m shooting him,” Wilson said. “And the face that he had was looking straight through me, like I wasn’t even there, I wasn’t even anything in his way.”
Wilson took aim at Brown’s head for the shot that would kill the unarmed teen. “When he fell, he fell on his face,” Wilson recalled. “I remember his feet coming up … and then they rested.”
Then came the end.
“When it went into him,” Wilson said, “the demeanor on his face went blank, the aggression was gone, it was gone, I mean I knew he stopped, the threat was stopped.”' [Source]
Yes, the "threat was stopped". But did it take killing an unarmed teen to stop it?
Sadly, I am starting to see a pattern here.