Obama’s Selma Song: America Is Not Racist – It’s Just Ferguson

“Obama’s 2015 Selma paradigm meshes with his 2007 fiction that Blacks had already traveled 90 percent of the road to equality.”

Photo by dogsy.

By Glenn Ford, BAR
Barack Obama returned to Selma, Alabama, last Saturday, with an updated version of his speech on race delivered eight years ago, during another commemoration of the 1965 march over the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Back then, presidential candidate Obama told the crowd at Brown Chapel AME Church that Blacks had already come “90 percent of the way” to racial equality. He was implicitly predicting that the election of himself as the first Black president would propel African Americans to 100 percent equality, completing the journey and marking the end of racial politics in the United States. It was a bald-faced lie, by any statistical measurement. Blacks had never earned more than 66 cents on the white dollar, and would fall much further behind before Obama set foot in Selma, again. Catastrophically, Black median household wealth would collapse to one-twentieth that of whites under his watch.

A year after his first Selma speech, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright affair would force candidate Obama to give a widely acclaimed presentation on race, in Philadelphia. Obama trashed his former pastor for harboring a “profoundly distorted view of this country — a view that sees white racism as endemic” – a term defined as “belonging or native to a particular people or country.” He denied that racism had ever been endemic in the U.S.

Last weekend, Obama returned to the subject of endemic racism. “What happened in Ferguson may not be unique, but it’s no longer endemic, or sanctioned by law and custom; and before the Civil Rights Movement, it most surely was,” he told the huge throng in Selma. Obama now admits that racism had once been endemic to the country but, apparently, the marching of Black feet had stamped it out, so that it is now limited to Ferguson-like localities. “We do a disservice to the cause of justice,” he said, “by intimating that bias and discrimination are immutable, or that racial division is inherent to America.” How dare they malign the world’s first apartheid nation, a country that rose to superpower status on stolen land and labor, in such cruel fashion!

Obama tries to split the U.S. historical time-line in two: Before Civil Rights (BCR) versus After Civil Rights (ACR) – an exercise that allows him to dismiss today’s racial realities by dumping the endemic variety into the era before voting rights and scraping the leftovers into benighted places like Ferguson, Missouri. Obama’s 2015 Selma paradigm meshes with his 2007 fiction that Blacks had already traveled 90 percent of the road to equality and were one presidential vote away from completing the process – which is another way of saying that the Democratic Party will set you free.

“Before going to Selma, Obama took care to preserve the impunities of killer cops.”

The president’s reasoning also gives aid and comfort to the majority of whites, including youngsters, that now believe white people are the most discriminated-against class in America. If endemic racism has been all but eliminated and Black people have already achieved near-equal status, then Black protestations to the contrary are baseless and maliciously racist in intent. The real problem, therefore, is “reverse racism”: that Black Lives Matter too much. As anti-racist white scholars Paul Street and Tim Wise warned in the run-up to the 2008 election, many whites interpret Obama’s ascension as having removed any residual legitimacy from Black complaints. Obama’s rhetoric and behavior buttress that twisted worldview.

Before going to Selma, Obama took care to preserve the impunities of killer cops. He stands firmly by Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision not to indict former Ferguson officer Darren Wilson on civil rights charges in the death of Michael Brown. Wilson, "like anyone else who is charged with a crime, benefits from due process and a reasonable doubt standard," the president told a largely Black crowd in South Carolina. "If there is uncertainty about what happened, then you can't just charge him anyway because what happened was tragic."

For Obama and Holder, the routine killing of unarmed Blacks by police is “tragic,” but not evidence of anything endemic in American society – certainly, not something for the U.S. Justice Department to worry about.

The division of U.S. history into pre- and post-Selma eras is also a way of delegitimizing the struggles that continued after passage of civil rights legislation: the battles against domestic and global social injustice and the fight against what the Black Panther Party for Self Defense called the police “army of occupation.” Five years after the events on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, the national policy of mass Black incarceration had become fully operational. Over the space of two generations, an entire people would be criminalized by the Mass Black Incarceration State – what Michelle Alexander calls “The New Jim Crow” – a system so pervasive and unremitting that one out of every eight prison inmates in the world is now an African American. This is the system that Obama and Holder so vigorously defend.

Atlanta Black Congressman John Lewis, who was beaten senseless by the Alabama Highway Patrol on Edmund Pettus Bridge, told last weekend’s crowd: "If someone told me 50 years ago I'd be back on this bridge introducing a black president of the United States, I'd have said you're crazy."

Maybe. And, if someone had said, back in 2007, when Barack Obama spoke at Brown Chapel AME Church, that he would surpass George Bush in fomenting war and chaos in the world, including a 7-month bombing campaign against an African country; exempt “too big to jail” bankers from all criminal penalties; pass legislation effectively nullifying due process of law (except, apparently, for killer cops); and subvert public education in favor of privatized charter schools – in short, that the first Black president would become the “more effective evil” – few would have believed it. But now we know.

It is a bridge that Black people had to painfully cross, to arrive at the other side of the illusion.

_____________
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.

 Reprinted with permission from Black Agenda Report.

Killer Cop NOT Indicted by Ferguson Grand Jury for Killing of Michael Brown — Surprised??

Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson: Looks like he'll be free to enjoy that $500,000-plus
that the white supremacists donated to him (via crowd funding) for the killing of Michael
Brown. He'll likely be treated like a hero and rewarded with job opportunities throughout
the United States.

_________

Prosecutor Robert P. McCulloch: Everyone who understands the grand jury system
knows "you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich" if you wanted to. McCulloch
was the man responsible for presenting a weak case to the grand jury so that Darren
Wilson would not be indicted for the murder of Michael Brown. During the grand jury
proceedings McCulloch illegally leaked secret grand jury testimony to the media in an
attempt to assassinate the character of the victim, Michael Brown — proof he wasn't
serious about getting an indictment of killer cop Darren Wilson. The black citizens of
Ferguson wanted McCulloch to recuse himself from the case because he has many
family members who work for the police and his policeman father was killed in the
line of duty by a black person. McCulloch insisted on staying on as prosecutor - some
believe he was seeking revenge for his father's death.

____________________

Cop Who Killed Michael Brown Had No Visible Injuries After the Shooting — New Videos Show: Propaganda About Darren Wilson's Injuries Proven False

Not only does the newly released video show Darren Wilson had no facial injuries (and certainly no bandages on his face), but Wilson seemed to have no injuries at all. He shows no injuries or bandages on his face, arms, wrists, or hands either going to the hospital or coming from the hospital.

Darren Wilson returns from hospital (left), Darren Wilson on way to hospital (middle, right).
Screen captures from newly released video shows that, contrary to earlier reports,
Darren Wilson appears to have suffered no injuries whatsoever.

This was the photograph provided to the grand jury which was supposed to "prove"
the existence of the facial injuries suffered by Darren Wilson's at the hands of Michael
Brown: Apparently jury members were supposed to stare at the photo and imagine the
injuries.

By Ronald David Jackson
Soon after Michael Brown was killed by officer Darren Wilson, tt was reported that Darren Wilson suffered a "fractured eye socket" after a "scuffle" with Michael Brown. The Washington Post said their source was a family friend of Wilson's. ABC reported that a "source" claimed Wilson suffered a "serious facial injury". NBC suggested Wilson suffered injuries when they reported that Wilson was "taken to the hospital" after his encounter with Michael Brown. There was even some psychological warfare, when a bogus photograph of Darren Wilson severely injured in a hospital bed went viral. CNN labeled reports of a fractured eye socket false.

ABC News report of Darren Wilson's 'Serious Facial Injury'

_______________


Darren Wilson leaves the police station for the hospital after he shot Michael Brown and appears to be free of the injuries he reportedly suffered
at the hands of Michael Brown

- - - -


Darren Wilson arrives back at police station from the hospital and appears to be free of the "severe facial injuries" he reportedly suffered at the hands of Michael Brown

____________________

Did Cop Who Killed Michael Brown Have History of Lying & Abuse?: Video Suggests He Lied in Police Report About Arrest of Man Who Video Taped Him (Video)

Darren Wilson doesn't like to be video taped.

-  -  - -

Darren Wilson: "...Take a picture of me one more time, I'm a lock your ass up."
Mike Arman: "Sir, do I not have the right to record?" — Darren Wilson: "No you don't."

- - - -

The video seems to tell a different story from what Darren Wilson
provided in his police report

Excerpt from Darren Wilson's police report of the incident leading to arrest of man who video taped him.

1) Darren Wilson did not advise the individual that a voice recording would be acceptable.

2) The individual did not have his camera in Darren Wilson's face.

3) The individual was not ordered to get off the porch and place his hands behind his back before he was arrested.

Read the Entire Police Report

____________________

Hysteria Over Ferguson Grand Jury an Indictment of America

Michael Brown, Sr. - Discusses Moving St. Louis Forward

 

By Derrick Z. Jackson
The national hysteria over the Ferguson grand jury is a fresh indictment of America. The core issue is a charge of police brutality by a white officer shooting an unarmed black 18-year-old man. Yet all around the country, the talk is about black violence.

Here in Boston, police are sending out robocalls to public school students and sending messages to college students to stay calm. In Oakland, California, businesses are putting steel plates on their doors. In Los Angeles, Police Chief Charlie Beck said he hopes to get advance notice from Missouri authorities about whether or not the grand jury indicts Ferguson officer Darren Wilson for Brown’s shooting. And in Ferguson, some schools are already closed in anticipation of the decision, gun sales have skyrocketed and a state of emergency was declared by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon.

To be sure, Attorney General Eric Holder and many black clergy have also asked for police restraint for any protests after the grand jury decision is announced. But such balanced pleas have been drowned out by the drama of an FBI warning that the grand jury’s decision “will likely be exploited by some individuals to justify threats and attacks against law enforcement and critical infrastructure.” The memo said people “could be armed with bladed weapons or firearms, equipped with tactical gear/gas masks, or bulletproof vests to mitigate law enforcement measures.”

Meanwhile, police restraint is hard to come by.

Read More

____________________

The New York Times Assassinates Michael Brown: Publish Prosecutor's Leaks They Know Is Propaganda

“Good police reporters know when they’re being used by the police. Bad police reporters also know when they’re being used by the police but they eagerly report whatever the police want them to report."—Lawrence O'Donnell, MSNBC

The Ferguson prosecutor and his enablers at CNN and the New York Times would fail a lie detector test.

By Margaret Kimberle, BAR
Eighteen year old Michael Brown man was shot to death by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri on August 9, 2014. Because the people of Ferguson rose up in protest, his death did not disappear as is often the case with black victims of police violence. Newspapers and television networks from all over the world cover the continuing protests as a grand jury deliberates Wilson’s fate.

The coverage has varied greatly in quality, with the New York Times faring the worst among the major corporate media outlets. The Times alternately casts aspersions on Brown’s character and relies on law enforcement leaks which make it appear that Wilson acted appropriately when he shot a fleeing, unarmed young man. The result is justification for racist murder.

One of the newspaper’s African American reporters, John Eligon, began a profile of Brown by stating that he was “no angel” who performed “vulgar” rap music lyrics, “dabbled in drugs and alcohol” and got into scuffles. Even the Times public editor conceded that the words “no angel” were “a regrettable mistake.” In another profile, Wilson was called “well mannered”, “relatively soft spoken” and “bland.” There was no mention of his musical tastes or recreational activities, and no judgments made about his character.

But the worst case scenario has happened not once, but twice with New York Times reporters reporting law enforcement leaks as if they are factual and making the case that Wilson was justified in shooting Brown. An August 19, 2014 Times headline claimed that eyewitnesses to the shooting gave accounts which conflicted with another and which also implied Brown threatened Wilson after he fled.

That headline is easily proven to be untrue. Every witness to the shooting has been consistent. All say that Brown and Wilson had a physical altercation through the patrol car window. They all say that a shot or shots were fired inside the car. They all say that Brown fled while Wilson continued to shoot at him. They all say that Brown turned towards Wilson while already wounded and that Wilson continued to shoot him as he fell. One bullet struck Brown in the top of his skull and another in one of his eyes.

“The Times headline claimed that eyewitnesses to the shooting gave accounts which conflicted with another and which also implied Brown threatened Wilson after he fled.”

These accounts and Brown’s autopsy were all public by the time the August article appeared. Witnesses spoke on air to MSNBC and CNN and to the New York Times as well. It should not have been difficult to give a clear and accurate account of their words. There was a justifiable uproar over this story which led to the Times public editor again agreeing with critics because reporters made claims they couldn’t verify and that they didn’t emphasize enough their reliance on interested parties.

Did reporters Frances Robles and Michael S. Schmidt speak to Wilson, Wilson’s attorney, the Ferguson police department, the justice department, local prosecutors, or all of the above? MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell gave this assessment of the Times article. “Good police reporters know when they’re being used by the police. Bad police reporters also know when they’re being used by the police but they eagerly report whatever the police want them to report.”

Not content to happily be used in the cause of injustice, on October 17, 2014 reporters Michael S. Schmidt, Matt Apuzzo and Julie Bosman continued to flack in Darren Wilson’s interest. This time they repeat Wilson’s account without analysis or the information already made public which casts doubt on his story. According to the Times, Wilson says he believed his life was in danger as he and Brown struggled in the patrol car. It isn’t news that Wilson and Brown struggled, nor is it newsworthy that the officer would claim to feel endangered. But the story made it appear that the old information was new, and didn’t make it clear that Wilson fired ten more shots after Brown fled.

The net effect of the pro-Wilson bias is very simple. Schmidt, Apuzzo and Bosman conclude erroneously that there will be a “high bar” in proving a federal civil rights case against Wilson. That statement is highly debatable but it is now more likely to be true because the most powerful newspaper in the country says that it is true. Journalist Milton Allimadi points out the obvious. “Pre-attacking the federal case is the strategy. That's why the Times is being fed the information, which upon careful analyses, are not as impactful as Wilson's supporters believe and the Times' story implies.”

“Reporters made claims they couldn’t verify and that they didn’t emphasize enough their reliance on interested parties.”

The Obama administration has no interest in taking on the civil rights violations committed by police and vigilantes across the country. They may invite Trayvon Martin’s parents to the White House and show them off for effect, but they have made no effort to prosecute George Zimmerman, who is a free man. If the paper which represents the interests of the powerful says that Wilson was justified, then he will be called justified and Brown’s family will get no more justice than Martin’s did.

The Times is not alone in acting as Wilson’s defense team. As previously reported in Black Agenda Report, Charles Blow and Van Jones disgracefully made the case for Wilson on CNN and acted as a defense team for him and for all of white America. No one inside or outside of the New York Times should think they can get away with defending America’s injustice system without repercussion or comment.

The odds of the legal system bringing justice to Michael Brown’s family were always slim. They are even slimmer if the New York Times, the so-called paper of record, gives license to killer police officers. Already the poorly reported story is being repeated as gospel truth, and righteous anger is made to appear suspect.

Michael Brown was running away and already wounded when he was shot in the head and in the eye. Until the New York Times makes that clear their coverage is worthless journalistically and gives aid and comfort to American lynch law, which has never been repealed.


______________________
Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

 Reprinted with permission from Black Agenda Report



.____________________

Autopsy Findings Leaked By Ferguson Prosecutor Was 'Taken Out of Context' and 'Misquoted'- Says Expert Who Did The Autopsy (Video)

While the pro-police media has gone wild publishing the autopsy leaks from the Ferguson prosecutor, they have been almost silent about the forensic pathologist who says her findings were taken out of context.

Judy Melinek suggested the Ferguson prosecutor's interpretation of her
findings was biased. (Screen capture from MSNBC video)

By Dylan Scott
Judy Melinek, one of the forensic experts who was quoted by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Tuesday about the Michael Brown autopsy report, is taking issue with how the newspaper portrayed her comments.

The key piece of Melinek's analysis, according to the Post-Dispatch's original report, was that the report of Brown's autopsy "supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound. If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun.”

That would be consistent with Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson's version of events, as reported by the New York Times and others. Melinek was also paraphrased by the newspaper saying that the autopsy was inconsistent with witness accounts of Brown having his hands up in surrender when he was shot by Wilson.

But Melinek told MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on Wednesday that her comments had been taken "out of context" and that she believed the findings could be explained by other scenarios as well.

Read More

Ferguson Grand Jury "Reaches Decision": But as You Can Tell From All the Worry About Unrest — Few Believe the Killer Cop Will Be Indicted

Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson: Looks like he'll be free to enjoy that $500,000 plus
that the white supremacists donated to him (via crowd funding) for the killing of Michael
Brown. He'll likely be treated like a hero and rewarded with job opportunities
throughout the United States.

By Jason Sickles
A St. Louis County grand jury has finally reached a decision on whether to charge Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown Jr., several media outlets reported Monday.

The panel’s ruling is expected to be revealed during a press conference at the courthouse in Clayton later today.

Anxiety over the decision has kept the St. Louis region on edge, as the public waits to see whether the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager by a white police officer will result in an indictment.

The grand jury convened Aug. 20 to hear evidence and testimony. The 12-member group was asked to decide if there was probable cause to charge Wilson with a crime and what that charge should be. Options range from second-degree involuntary manslaughter to second-degree murder. Wilson, 28, could face life in prison if convicted of the most serious charge.

But the panel may find that probable cause does not exist and dismiss the state’s case, without charging Wilson.

Read More

____________________

Cop Who Killed Michael Brown Had No Visible Injuries After the Shooting — New Videos Show: Propaganda About Darren Wilson's Injuries Proven False

Not only does the newly released video show Darren Wilson had no facial injuries (and certainly no bandages on his face), but Wilson seemed to have no injuries at all. He shows no injuries or bandages on his face, arms, wrists, or hands either going to the hospital or coming from the hospital.

Darren Wilson returns from hospital (left), Darren Wilson on way to hospital (middle, right).
Screen captures from newly released video shows that, contrary to earlier reports,
Darren Wilson appears to have suffered no injuries whatsoever.

By Ronald David Jackson
Soon after Michael Brown was killed by officer Darren Wilson, tt was reported that Darren Wilson suffered a "fractured eye socket" after a "scuffle" with Michael Brown. The Washington Post said their source was a family friend of Wilson's. ABC reported that a "source" claimed Wilson suffered a "serious facial injury". NBC suggested Wilson suffered injuries when they reported that Wilson was "taken to the hospital" after his encounter with Michael Brown. There was even some psychological warfare, when a bogus photograph of Darren Wilson severely injured in a hospital bed went viral. CNN labeled reports of a fractured eye socket false.

ABC News report of Darren Wilson's 'Serious Facial Injury'

_______________


Darren Wilson leaves the police station for the hospital after he shot Michael Brown and appears to be free of the injuries he reportedly suffered
at the hands of Michael Brown

__________


Darren Wilson arrives back at police station from the hospital and appears to be free of the "severe facial injuries" he reportedly suffered at the hands of Michael Brown

____________________

Did Cop Who Killed Michael Brown Have History of Lying & Abuse?: Video Suggests He Lied in Police Report About Arrest of Man Who Video Taped Him (Video)

Darren Wilson doesn't like to be video taped.

_____________

Darren Wilson: "...Take a picture of me one more time, I'm a lock your ass up."
Mike Arman: "Sir, do I not have the right to record?" — Darren Wilson: "No you don't."

_________________

The video seems to tell a different story from what Darren Wilson
provided in his police report

Excerpt from Darren Wilson's police report of the incident leading to arrest of man who video taped him.

1) Darren Wilson did not advise the individual that a voice recording would be acceptable.

2) The individual did not have his camera in Darren Wilson's face.

3) The individual was not ordered to get off the porch and place his hands behind his back before he was arrested.

Read the Entire Police Report

____________________

The New York Times Assassinates Michael Brown: Publish Prosecutor's Leaks They Know Is Propaganda

“Good police reporters know when they’re being used by the police. Bad police reporters also know when they’re being used by the police but they eagerly report whatever the police want them to report."—Lawrence O'Donnell, MSNBC

The Ferguson prosecutor and his enablers at CNN and the New York Times would fail a lie detector test.

By Margaret Kimberle, BAR
Eighteen year old Michael Brown man was shot to death by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri on August 9, 2014. Because the people of Ferguson rose up in protest, his death did not disappear as is often the case with black victims of police violence. Newspapers and television networks from all over the world cover the continuing protests as a grand jury deliberates Wilson’s fate.

The coverage has varied greatly in quality, with the New York Times faring the worst among the major corporate media outlets. The Times alternately casts aspersions on Brown’s character and relies on law enforcement leaks which make it appear that Wilson acted appropriately when he shot a fleeing, unarmed young man. The result is justification for racist murder.

One of the newspaper’s African American reporters, John Eligon, began a profile of Brown by stating that he was “no angel” who performed “vulgar” rap music lyrics, “dabbled in drugs and alcohol” and got into scuffles. Even the Times public editor conceded that the words “no angel” were “a regrettable mistake.” In another profile, Wilson was called “well mannered”, “relatively soft spoken” and “bland.” There was no mention of his musical tastes or recreational activities, and no judgments made about his character.

But the worst case scenario has happened not once, but twice with New York Times reporters reporting law enforcement leaks as if they are factual and making the case that Wilson was justified in shooting Brown. An August 19, 2014 Times headline claimed that eyewitnesses to the shooting gave accounts which conflicted with another and which also implied Brown threatened Wilson after he fled.

That headline is easily proven to be untrue. Every witness to the shooting has been consistent. All say that Brown and Wilson had a physical altercation through the patrol car window. They all say that a shot or shots were fired inside the car. They all say that Brown fled while Wilson continued to shoot at him. They all say that Brown turned towards Wilson while already wounded and that Wilson continued to shoot him as he fell. One bullet struck Brown in the top of his skull and another in one of his eyes.

“The Times headline claimed that eyewitnesses to the shooting gave accounts which conflicted with another and which also implied Brown threatened Wilson after he fled.”

These accounts and Brown’s autopsy were all public by the time the August article appeared. Witnesses spoke on air to MSNBC and CNN and to the New York Times as well. It should not have been difficult to give a clear and accurate account of their words. There was a justifiable uproar over this story which led to the Times public editor again agreeing with critics because reporters made claims they couldn’t verify and that they didn’t emphasize enough their reliance on interested parties.

Did reporters Frances Robles and Michael S. Schmidt speak to Wilson, Wilson’s attorney, the Ferguson police department, the justice department, local prosecutors, or all of the above? MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell gave this assessment of the Times article. “Good police reporters know when they’re being used by the police. Bad police reporters also know when they’re being used by the police but they eagerly report whatever the police want them to report.”

Not content to happily be used in the cause of injustice, on October 17, 2014 reporters Michael S. Schmidt, Matt Apuzzo and Julie Bosman continued to flack in Darren Wilson’s interest. This time they repeat Wilson’s account without analysis or the information already made public which casts doubt on his story. According to the Times, Wilson says he believed his life was in danger as he and Brown struggled in the patrol car. It isn’t news that Wilson and Brown struggled, nor is it newsworthy that the officer would claim to feel endangered. But the story made it appear that the old information was new, and didn’t make it clear that Wilson fired ten more shots after Brown fled.

The net effect of the pro-Wilson bias is very simple. Schmidt, Apuzzo and Bosman conclude erroneously that there will be a “high bar” in proving a federal civil rights case against Wilson. That statement is highly debatable but it is now more likely to be true because the most powerful newspaper in the country says that it is true. Journalist Milton Allimadi points out the obvious. “Pre-attacking the federal case is the strategy. That's why the Times is being fed the information, which upon careful analyses, are not as impactful as Wilson's supporters believe and the Times' story implies.”

“Reporters made claims they couldn’t verify and that they didn’t emphasize enough their reliance on interested parties.”

The Obama administration has no interest in taking on the civil rights violations committed by police and vigilantes across the country. They may invite Trayvon Martin’s parents to the White House and show them off for effect, but they have made no effort to prosecute George Zimmerman, who is a free man. If the paper which represents the interests of the powerful says that Wilson was justified, then he will be called justified and Brown’s family will get no more justice than Martin’s did.

The Times is not alone in acting as Wilson’s defense team. As previously reported in Black Agenda Report, Charles Blow and Van Jones disgracefully made the case for Wilson on CNN and acted as a defense team for him and for all of white America. No one inside or outside of the New York Times should think they can get away with defending America’s injustice system without repercussion or comment.

The odds of the legal system bringing justice to Michael Brown’s family were always slim. They are even slimmer if the New York Times, the so-called paper of record, gives license to killer police officers. Already the poorly reported story is being repeated as gospel truth, and righteous anger is made to appear suspect.

Michael Brown was running away and already wounded when he was shot in the head and in the eye. Until the New York Times makes that clear their coverage is worthless journalistically and gives aid and comfort to American lynch law, which has never been repealed.


______________________
Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

 Reprinted with permission from Black Agenda Report.

____________________

Autopsy Findings Leaked By Ferguson Prosecutor Was 'Taken Out of Context' and 'Misquoted'- Says Expert Who Did The Autopsy (Video)

While the pro-police media has gone wild publishing the autopsy leaks from the Ferguson prosecutor, they have been almost silent about the forensic pathologist who says her findings were taken out of context.

Judy Melinek suggested the Ferguson prosecutor's interpretation of her
findings was biased. (Screen capture from MSNBC video)

By Dylan Scott
Judy Melinek, one of the forensic experts who was quoted by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Tuesday about the Michael Brown autopsy report, is taking issue with how the newspaper portrayed her comments.

The key piece of Melinek's analysis, according to the Post-Dispatch's original report, was that the report of Brown's autopsy "supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound. If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun.”

That would be consistent with Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson's version of events, as reported by the New York Times and others. Melinek was also paraphrased by the newspaper saying that the autopsy was inconsistent with witness accounts of Brown having his hands up in surrender when he was shot by Wilson.

But Melinek told MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on Wednesday that her comments had been taken "out of context" and that she believed the findings could be explained by other scenarios as well.

Read More