Well there's not really any evidence that suggests that he's guilty of anything besides self defense. There's not really any reason to think that this was anything more than someone attacking a man with a gun and getting shot as a result. Now if something credible comes out suggesting otherwise, that would change things, but nothing has been made public. The witnesses who say he was shot with his hands up or shot in the back have been discredited by the autopsy results.
There were a number of white people protesting... Although I am not sure why that matters. Do a majority of white people support the protestors? Does it even matter? A mob is just that... A mob. Some of those there support peaceful methods and are educated on the issues and sincerely believe Brown was murdered. Some know little about the facts, are not objective and are criminal thugs looking for an excuse to numb their worthless lives by hurting their own community and neighbors. If the national guard initiates violence or over reacts they will deserve to be held accountable. However to say that the Governor should not prepare for the worst is dangerous. It is a powder keg and order needs to be kept.
stop reading faux news there have been several that stated that he had his hands up before he was shot and killed and when has any of there credible be questioned show some fact not faux info. http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-witnesses/
And that is all i was trying to get across but as you can tell there are some that want the violence to take place so it will make the bad one look like they are what the peaceful protesters are about.
Please don't make stupid assumptions like that. No witness that says he was shot with his hands up can be credible because the autopsy reports directly contradict that. Solid evidence like autopsy reports and ballistics reports trump eyewitness accounts every single time. Every intelligence analyst in the world will tell you that human intelligence is the least reliable intelligence.
are you kidding me? Some of us are on here supporting the national guard's presence so the violence DOESN'T take place. If anybody is arguing for violence, it's you, since you oppose the extra security presence. Get a clue
The autopsy reports don't discredit anything. In fact they could support either side. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/15/myths-and-facts-on-ferguson-shooting/19085451/
Are you drinking something not once have i supported violence nor opposed extra security but it does show you have a bad understanding nor have i been bias to either side the National Guards being there can send a wrong message to some of the NON peaceful protesters.
The appropriate arbiter of the credibility of witnesses and autopsy reports both is a jury of peers. That's how the court system works. It would be inappropriate for a grand jury to decide that the eyewitness testimony should be automatically discounted. I'm not saying they should allow the case to go forward or not, but this argument is not a good one. As for National Guard, I'd send them out because of the KKK's threats of violence and the big uptick of gun sales. I'm more worried about white people 'standing their ground' than black people protesting or rioting. I think the black community there will see it as oppression to have the National Guard deployed given the history they've had there, but I think everyone will be better off in the long run if they put a big lid on everything. Now if the National Guard becomes overbearing or, God forbid, shoots someone, it'll get pretty ugly.
That's simply not true, their job is to weigh evidence to see if it is sufficient for a trial. If eyewitness evidence is contradictory with more solid evidence then they rightly should deem it invalid. Every eyewitness who said he was shot in the back has invalidated their account of the situation. In this instance, there simply isn't enough evidence against the cop to proceed with trial since it boils down to his word against theirs and the evidence doesn't dispute the officer's telling of the story. We know there was a struggle in the car, we know that the guy was going in the direction of the officer when shot, there's no reason to doubt the officer's account of the story. You are going to have a diverse group of complete morons out there, IMO mobilizing the National Guard ahead of time is the best way to minimize the damage caused when those groups of morons inevitably turn violent.
Last night a doctor on CNN who has reviewed the autopsy said there is no other conclusion that can be drawn from the autopsy other than that Michael Brown was show first in the arm while surrendering, then below the chest and then in the head as he toppled over. He said any narrative that depicts this as anything other than murder is ridiculous. Others have said the opposite and others have said it can be interpreted multiple ways. I don't think it's clear AT ALL what happened based on the information we have. However, the Grand Jury is getting a lot more information than we are. People ready to exonerate the officer are just as wrong here as those ready to send him to prison. We don't have all of the facts and the ones we do have aren't easily interpreted.
Well, their job is to determine if there is probable cause on which to bring an indictment. It's part of the prosecutorial function and serves essentially to determine if a prosecutor should bother with his case. A grand jury could say, I suppose, that the eyewitness testimony is so flimsy that no one should really bother hearing it -- that the prosecutor has got nothing to run on. But the bias is going to be for indictments if a credible argument can be made. That's their job.
That's true, the bias is absolutely towards indictment, but in this case there's not really any solid evidence against the cop and the eyewitness accounts say vastly different things. Some say he was shot in the back while running away, some say he was shot while surrendering, some say he was shot while charging the officer....There's just nothing concrete to charge him with. None of the solid evidence contradicts the cop's version of the story.
You only know the eyewitness testimony that has been put on cable news and you only know about the evidence that has been leaked or discussed by the doctors who performed autopsies. Those doctors by the way, interpret the autopsy results differently. The standard for an indictment is pretty low. Competing eyewitness testimony and autopsy interpretations should give a no bill necessarily.
Fine. Let's say the grand jury will decide whichever way it'll decide and we (the US) will deal with the outcomes. They could say the evidence is insufficient, or maybe they won't. It's not a given that they'll discount the eye witness testimony, but they might. We're really not well-positioned to say.
That is so true i wonder will the the city of New York's mayor declare a state of emergency in the Garner case.
You are more worried about white people causing problems in Ferguson than black people? This is the most ridiculous comment ever. Maybe you've missed the last few months of activity there? This entire issue is about poorly-informed protesters threatening violence. Then the government became involved and used it to register voters and used it to rally the base. It didn't work for them in the midterms, so now it's OK to release the grand jury findings. But good on you for declaring that grand juries serve no purpose in our legal system. No doubt that statement was grounded in deep legal analysis!
