Another case where the article makes clear that there was no case to answer. It went to a Grand Jury twice, and there was no grounds for a trial. Justice, despite the claims of the mother in the article, has happened. What hasn’t happened is what she actually wants, unjustified revenge for the unfortunate but non-criminal killing of her son.
It’s fully understandable that she wants that. What is not understandable or acceptable is that other people, free of emotion and in possession of the facts, should want that. Your hard-on for punishing cops for perceived (but not actual) crimes puts you at the same moral level as a 1930s redneck who liked lynching niggers for perceived insults.
Actually no, you are worse. The victims of lynching were simply neutral, trying to live their lives. You want to punish those who are risking their lives to make your life, and everyone else’s, better and safer, because you refuse to look at the actual facts and events that have happened. That’s inexcusable.