Your "much like Ferguson" comment sounds like you think that was a travesty of justice. I see that you haven't kept up. Despite other issues with general law enforcement in Ferguson, from witness and forensic evidence it turns out that the cop at the center of all the fuss was be seen as acting reasonably in shooting Michael Brown. http://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf
As discussed above, Darren Wilson has stated his intent in shooting Michael Brown wasin response to a perceived deadly threat. The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson undersection 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).
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).
The Toronto cop has been charged. Your comments show that you have convicted him based solely on media and social media accounts, but he's entitled to his day in court same as anyone else facing such a charge. With all of those witnesses and all of the video of the event, a court will figure it out based on the merits of the case.
