On 11/27/2014 11:26 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:59:14 AM UTC-5, gonjah wrote:
On 11/27/2014 7:38 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
"gonjah" wrote in message
...
On 11/27/2014 7:14 AM, trader_4 wrote:
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"

Sorry I can't be more specific.

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.


That's what I've heard too. The hurdle for the DOJ is pretty high.

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.


Can you cite a credible source? I'd be interested in reading that in
detail.

TIA

here is but one.

http://news.yahoo.com/grand-jury-doc...223558856.html



I found a chart at PBS that points out both the consistencies and
inconsistencies. I don't see anything unusual. Eyewitnesses see things
from different angles and with different biases. ****, some maybe lying.
Which, to me, is one of the reasons this should have gone to trial.

http://newshour-tc.pbs.org/newshour/...alfinalup4.png

Nice, you put the officer on trial because witnesses were lying.

You missed the definition of "some".

Inconsistent testimony wasn't a good enough reason. It would be unusual
if the witness matched. You have to account for an almost infinite
number of variables...but you know that. I think.


How
about putting the witnesses who *admitted* they lied on trial for perjury?
That;s what should be happening, but it won't because they're black.
Good grief. The GJ heard the testimony right from the witnesses. They could
see how well their stories held up under questioning. They had
the forensic evidence, all the accounts to sort through what made sense and
what did not. The GJ included 3 blacks. I'd say their process over months
and their decision trumps you looking at some chart on PBS.