strip bannernew-logo25Marti Oakley


A recent article made the statement that ” When officers are on untitledvvvduty, they don’t know if at the end of the day, they are going home, to the hospital or to the morgue”.  Strange, that is just how the public feels when they are confronted by them.


The Department of Justice (an oxymoron if there ever was one) just issued its decision regarding the death of Michael Brown at the hands of Ferguson, Missouri police officer Wilson that occurred in November 2014. Like millions of other people, I was not there. I have no idea what did or did not happen other than what was related on the MSM, and you already know 99% of what comes from them is pure BS.

The DoJ determined that Michael Brown’s civil rights had not been violated. So, let me get this straight…… according to grand jury testimony, an officer confronts a man in the street and tells him to get on the sidewalk, they argue, scuffle, then he fires a total of 16 shots at him, two from inside his vehicle, one directly through the top of his head within 6-8 inches…..and the DoJ was concerned with whether his civil rights were violated? That’s what they were investigating?

As an aside:   Thanks to what had to have been careful questioning and very rehearsed answers, Wilson swore under oath that he stopped the men because he recognized their clothing from the description given for the robbery……. a robbery he could not and did not know about at the time he confronted Brown.  Did  Wilson knowingly commit perjury and intentionally lie to the grand jury about what really happened that day?

Federal authorities will not seek civil-rights charges against the Missouri cop who gunned down unarmed black teen Michael Brown, law-enforcement sources said Wednesday.

Its a sure fire bet that if you ask the wrong question you are most likely going to arrive at the wrong answer. This has to be one of the all-time greatest weasel-word swaps I have ever seen. I doubt Michael Brown was concerned with his civil rights at the time of his death. Personally, Brown’s civil rights do not concern me. But! His constitutional rights do. You’ll notice the DoJ never at any time referred to or considered Brown’s constitutional rights. This was no accident.

One of these things is different from the other

There has been an ongoing effort for more than 20 years to blur the legal line between your natural rights and liberties protected by the constitution, and those special privileges granted by the government called “civil rights”. Many would like you to think and believe that they are one and the same. They are not.

When it comes to “civil rights”, and these special government privileges, what the government giveth, the government can taketh away! Not so with your constitutional protections. Or at least that’s what we have been led to believe. History of course has shown that the government will take those away too whenever possible.

The questions that should have been asked

Was undue lethal force used? Did the evidence show self-defense or simply an execution style killing?
What precipitated the use of lethal force? Was it rational justification for the resulting death?

There were 16 shots accounted for.  The officer’s gun only holds 13……where did the other three come from?

The question was never whether or not Brown’s civil rights had been violated. Did anyone out there find themselves pondering whether or not Brown’s civil rights were an issue? Or were you wondering why this man was dead as the result of another law enforcement shooting?

This was a long stretch by the DoJ and one clearly selected to deflect from the actual issue at hand. It allowed the DoJ to excuse themselves from the issue while making it sound like they did a real investigation and came to a decision based on the actual facts as much as they were known.

It seems apparent to me that this was all smoke and mirrors and was meant to appease the public. The problem with this of course is that by not addressing the actual issue, they have provided what now will be used as legal cover for the ongoing killing of individuals by law enforcement, as they act as judge, jury and executioner.

As for myself, I am a little tired of hearing about how these armed officers are so fearful for their lives that packs of them beat homeless people to death, and then get acquitted.

Then shoot motorists who they have mis-identified, and then claim they thought they saw a weapon that never existed, and then get acquitted.

Or who shoot unarmed individuals in the street, all because they supposedly feared for their lives…. and get acquitted.

What happened in this particular case is that the government gave its seal of approval to the ongoing militarization of police and the escalating use of force against the public.

In a nutshell

Initially, MSM reported that the officer had stopped Brown for reasons unknown. It was alleged that he was involved in a convenience store robbery just prior to the shooting, but that Officer Wilson could not have known that at the time he confronted Brown and his friend who were standing in the street talking. The robbery had supposedly happened just minutes before and the report had not come in on that robbery at the time he confronted Brown.

But you are supposed to forget about that and move on to the new revised version that now says Wilson had confronted Brown after the robbery was reported.

After the dust settled, the St. Louis County prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch, in what had to be the coup de gras’ of legal wrangling, convened a grand jury to determine if Officer Wilson should be charged in the death of Brown, instead of charging the officer with the use of undue lethal force in a situation that he himself, initiated.

This grand jury was of course only allowed to see evidence the prosecutor wanted them to see, just the way he wanted them to see it. They heard testimony only from individuals who either would support the defense of Officer Wilson or who, could be depended upon to be detrimental to the image being presented of Brown. Surprise! They found no cause to hand down a true bill of indictment. Now, who didn’t see that coming?

Another curious thing in this is the constant referrals by spokespersons, calling Officer Wilson a “peace officer”.  Apparently, those speaking and using this term are not aware that police are under no obligation to keep the peace, according to SCOTUS.

Special Relationship
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the government to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without “due process of law.”2 In 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.”3 Generally, the Due Process Clause does not provide an affirmative right to government aid, “even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual.”4