Got anything more recent? That’s over a month old.
That would be the argument, wouldn’t it? But if one wants to preclude racism charges, the way would be to NOT do anything different, not go out of your way to do things different.
Doing things differently has been forced upon them, rightly or wrongly, by the massive international attention (yes, it’s been in the news here in the UK).
Don’t you think this might have more to do with the riots that have already happened in Ferguson, and not a conspiracy of any sort?
And it seems odd - you are saying the prosecutor is somehow being slipshod in his duties because he is presenting evidence to the grand jury, but doing so in a “haphazard” way.
Regards,
Shodan
No, it’s a choice. They could’ve simply filed a criminal complaint against Wilson as they do in most other cases in ferguson.
No. They’ve specifically stated they’re in preparations for riots in the event Wilson is not indicted cite.
Exactly. He’s deliberately not trying very hard.
Or, as is more likely, they don’t believe there is sufficient evidence for that, but rather than simple fail to file charges they have sent it to the Grand Jury so the process is transparent. They can’t simply file charges unless they believe they have good evidence and a decent chance of winning the trial. That would be backed up by them not offering any charging recommendations to the Jury, which suggests they don’t believe there is an appropriate charge.
Oh, goody. Here comes the Fascist FOREIGN Brigade…
It’s fascist to think people shouldn’t be charged on trumped-up charges without proper evidence? That’s an…unusual… definition.
There are at least FIVE witnesses who claim they saw Wilson execute Brown. That is, firing at him when he he was surrendering. Some of those witnesses are even white.
That’s not an execution, so you’re wrong there for starters. You are also wrong in saying he was automatically wrong to keep shooting if he was “surrendering” - if he was justified in shooting in the first place he was very likely justified in continuing shooting.
The evidence you have provided is evidence that the killing should be investigated, which it is being. It’s not sufficient for a trial, let alone a conviction. At minimum, you’ll need at least some evidence that speaks to his ill intent, and at least some that it wasn’t justified self defence.
Fortunately for everyone, the whole of the evidence is being examined by the Grand Jury, who can make an informed decision on what, if any, charges are appropriate.
We’re posting in a thread where there’s a full 2400+posts of arguments for why a cop is not justified in shooting someone who is unarmed, not resisting, and 30+ feet away. No need to go over all of that again. Suffice it to say, the person who was railroaded was Mike Brown, not Darren Wilson.
I’m aware of the contents of the thread, as I posted in it before you joined the board… Suffice it to say, your characterisation is false, and there’ve been many posts about how your summation of events is false or unproven, and therefore Wilson’s guilt is far from settled.
I’m not sure where you get the idea that it’s settled fact that Brown wasn’t resisting, or are you going to argue that Wilson’s fractured eyesocket (yeah, I’ve not forgotten about that even if everyone else has) couldn’t possibly have been caused by that?
He doesn’t have any such fracture. It was completely manufactured by the Dumbest Man On The Internet, Dim Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit.
Or to put it another way, you’re ignoring evidence you don’t like. Hopefully the Grand Jury won’t do the same.
The fact that you believe Hoft at all tells me all I need to know about you. The man is vile.
I like that last sentence of yours, actually. Says a lot. “Hopefully, the Grand Jury will allow this badged murderer to scoot free. After all, he only killed a black kid. Who needs more of them?”
I’ve no idea who he is. But as yet, his claim hasn’t been refuted, so it stands as evidence (not proof) of innocence.
Nope. Hopefully they will examine all the evidence and make the right decision, which will be to charge him if, and only if, there is sufficient evidence and a decent chance of winning. For some reason, you seem to want to disagree with me there - do you think they should charge him without sufficient evidence? Or just that they should waste time and money on an unwinnable trial? Because that’s the only way you can disagree with me.
And, again, it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with whether Brown appeared to be a threat. My opinion is that the evidence says yes. Yours is otherwise. And yet, when I say I hope the Grand Jury makes an honest decision based on all the evidence (not just that which we’ve seen), I’m somehow a fascist? How’s that work again?
I got the idea from the fact that Brown was unarmed and too far away to be any kind of threat to Wilson to warrant being gunned down. And Wilson’s (possible) fractured eye socket notwithstanding, cops are not allowed to kill out of retaliation. When they do that, it’s called murder.
If by “too far away” you mean “running towards him”, you might have a point. I guess you are another one who expects the police to wait until after they’ve actually been attacked to defend themselves, rather than acting to prevent that attack in the first place. Like everyone else can, and should. Self defence isn’t much use after you’ve been injured or killed.
Now, if it turns out that the reports that Brown was shot in the back are true, the story changes. But neither of the forensic reports I’ve seen support that. Do you have any evidence that he was?