Sir, still there's no proof, or hard evidence that supports one way or another. The only situation that has been proven is at the vehicle. Outside of the vehicle, the only thing that has been proven is that MB was facing him. Could he be facing him with his hands up? Sure. Hands down? Sure. Was he or not charging at him, both ways. Now the personal opinion comes in play, you might think if he's capable of hitting the officer, he's capable of charging at him. Sure, but it's still speculative because there's no proof of supporting it.
Yes to all. Finally we agree on something. So, if you agree that it is not desirous for a prosecutor to bring charges against someone if the evidence does not support that individual's guild... Please explain why you believe that we should make an exception in this case? The grand jury decided there was insufficient evidence, yet you want a special prosecutor. Please explain how this special prosecutor is supposed to proceed differently given the same evidence. Is is OK for a special prosecutor to bring someone up on charges with insufficient evidence, but not OK for a regular prosecutor to do so? You set this trap on yourself, you know.
Ah, so you are arguing that grand jury proceedings should be made public. Well then, why didn't you just say so? That is a fair argument to make if you want to make it.
There is no reason to believe that in this case the prosecutor was biased. That is where you go off the rails. By all accounts the prosecutor pretty much threw all available evidence at the grand jury and left it up to them. He was basically trying to wash his hands of it because he knew there was no case. Your assertions that he "was not seeking justice but framing it" are complete speculation on your part. But as is well known, libtards will always try to invalidate court findings that they disagree with by casting doubt in any way possible on the proceedings or the players involved; conspiracy theories are your bread and butter in such cases. I expect nothing less from you. You have nothing else.
Well, no actually. The forensics give the angles of the bullet wounds, and in concert with the blood patterns on the concrete it indicates that he was moving forward at the time he was being shot. When you combine that physical evidence with the multiple eyewitnesses who did state that he was charging at the officer then it's pretty hard to come to any other conclusion. The grand jury saw all of this. It's why they didn't indict. All of the physical evidence, the forensic evidence, supported Officer Wilson's story. None of it contradicted it.
Oh my goodness, in my last response my brain interpreted your "yes" as a no for some reason. I guess I can't really believe that someone would actually think this in any Western society... We still agree on nothing. So, you DO believe that it is acceptable for a prosecutor to charge someone with a crime even if the the prosecutor believes that there is insufficient evidence to support such a charge? You're totally cool with prosecutors just throwing charges at people willy nilly, evidence be dammed? Really? Really?!? Please. Please. Please explain why you feel this is justified. [popcorn]I was in a way hoping you would answer that way just out of fascination... [/popcorn]
Fearful of police brutality but totally OK with rogue prosecutors trying to send innocent people to jail. Mindboggling...
Upon glancing at the latest comments, I see that some of you are delving too deep and analyzing every possible detail. It's plain and simple: don't go ape **** on a police officer and you won't get shot. I'm pretty sure that's common sense for most of us law abiding citizens. But black people are a whole nother breed. They have the shortest tempers ever and think that every single human being should respect them. If you stare at them for more than 2 seconds, they interpret that as disrespect and basically challenge you to a fight. They dont back down from a fight, that's for sure. I'm just speaking from experience since I spent the better part of my childhood growing up in the ghetto around blacks. I'm just glad I moved out and didn't adopt any of their customs if not I would be dead or in jail.
Oh yes, I would love it if America implemented Assad-like repression as well. read between the lines.
...I have said so countless times, CTRL + F openness, public access. what did you think I meant when I said that?
I grew up in the hood around black people and they are a sensitive, rowdy bunch who don't tolerate any sort of disrespect. I'm just speaking from personal experience, it is not my intention to stir the pot.
It's not okay for a prosecutor whose integrity and impartiality on the case have been questioned to ignore established legal precedent in order to inject additional legal risk and uncertainty into what should have been a more cut-and-dry situation, and lead proceedings off into a cliff where they are both closed to the public, and create "exciting" new legal precedents. Appointing a special prosecutor helps increase the impression of impartiality and would have reduced tensions. It would have been in line with legal precedents. Instead, we have somebody who has questioned the governor's response to Ferguson direct legal proceedings off a new kind of cliff, increasing tensions. To tie it back into your original point, this was definitively not proper, and not a good course of action. Whether or not it is completely legal is questionable on some points of constitutional law. It didn't have to be this way at all. You have never understood this line of argumentation, and for some reason, you keep on trying to drive it to an absurd line of questioning. Everything you mention is improper. So is doing this. The two are separate---there were better alternatives that would have reduced tensions rather than increased them, and led to better process, even if the outcome MAY HAVE STILL BEEN THE SAME. And yes, that makes a critical difference---one that abides by the spirit of America's criminal law system, and the other that clearly doesn't.
Like I said, I'm speaking from personal experience growing up in the ghetto. Isn't Ferguson some sort of ghetto judging by all the rioting and nonsense? Burning down small business and looting? Really? I've been around some educated, well spoken black people. So I'm not judging, I'm just saying. Don't mean to press any buttons.
Ah yes, the last argument f the losing libtard: if all else fails, call your opponent a racist and see if he shuts up. Not exactly unexpected.
