On Thursday, November 27, 2014 7:07:10 AM UTC-5, gonjah wrote:
On 11/26/2014 10:36 PM, nestork wrote:
trader_4;3313595 Wrote:

There is also this notion out there that a black guy can do everything
wrong.
Commit a felony, ie a robbery at the convenience store. Commit another
felony, by striking the officer. Refuse to comply with orders to stop
and get on the ground. Curse at cops, give them attitude, start a
fight, grab for an cops gun and God knows what else. Then when it ends
in them getting shot to death, it's "the cop shot an unarmed black
teen". Even if a cop made some error along the way, I reject the notion
that a scoundrel can do anything they please, create a deadly situation,
and then the cop is still expected to do everything 100% correct and if
he does anything wrong, then it's the cop's fault for what happened,
racism, etc.

I think the more succinct way to put it is that Michael Brown lowered
the quality of life in the neighborhood he lived in. Anyone that walks
into a convenience store, steals whatever he wants with impunity and
punches out the store owner

Just for clarification. Per the video we've all seen, MB didn't
"punch-out" the store owner. Mike Brown pushed him, a little roughly,
out of the way.

for any attempt to stop him is a hooligan.
In China, hooliganism is punishable by death.


That is a silly argument. This isn't China.

While the civil rights activists are claiming this is a case of a racist
white cop shooting an unarmed child, the people that owned that
convenience store, and undoubtedly many others are glad that Michael
Brown is out of their lives.



I wouldn't go quite that far.

The real travesty of justice occurred at the grand jury when the
prosecutor acted like the cop's defense attorney. Wilson should have, at
least, gone to trial, as far as I can tell. I haven't read the grand
jury transcript, but that is what most of the experts I've heard have
said. Then again, I don't watch Fox News. I usually get my news from NPR
or PRI.

Well, that explains why you think most "experts" think he should have
gone to trial. Most of the experts in the rest of the media, think
otherwise. And they also think Holder at the DOJ has no case at all.

I don't see how anyone could think the decision is not supported by the
evidence. You have one credible eyewitness that completely corroborates the
officer's account, including that Brown was charging back. Many of the
other alleged eyewitnesses, changed their stories along the way or
admitted they didn't even see the key parts of it. The officer;s version
was consistent with the forensics. There is no way you'd ever get a
conviction.