Astonishing how those whom have NEVER IN THERE LIFE been subjected to racism think they know how it feel, what it is, and its influence in EVERY aspect of life for those whom are walking to walk. Please drop the Feaux News buzz words (race baiters) and try to see things outside of the bubble. Originally Posted by Frique-MeClarify this for me.
Are you taking the typical stance that ONLY non-white people can ever be the victim of racism? Talk about a lack of real world experience.
Isn't it racism that the news kept repeating that this was a white officer shooting a black man?
Flashback to when the news first reported on Trayvon Martin. They made a very similar claim that he was shot and killed by a white man. I mean, come on, "Zimmerman" HAD to be the last name of a white guy, right?
OOPS, once the fact came out the Zimmerman was actually a "light skinned Hispanic", they tried inserting thw word hispanic in the news reports, Zimmerman became a white Hispanic.
Has the press ever referred to President Obama as a "white African-American"? Or a light skinned African-American?
It was the job of the Grand Jury to decide if there was enough evidence to Indict the defendant... Ray Charles could see that there was. The conflicting accounts from eye witnesses were more than enough to justify a trial... Originally Posted by Frique-MeOK.
For the class, how about you please give us the evidence you claim even Ray Charles should have been able to see. The standard for a grand jury to indict is very low. I know that for a fact from my own time serving on a grand jury here in Dallas County. For them to not find enough to indict after everything they were given yet YOU seem to believe they over looked something, please. educate the class.
And please take note that I said evidence. NOT bulllshit lies repeated by people who were not there.
As I noted, once the forensic evidence of the 2 shots having been fired inside the police SUV were presented to the Grand Jury, and that forensics evidence included blood splatter from Brown, I found it funny how the blowhards who claimed they saw the entire 90 seconds of this incident were proved to be liars.
Take the exact incident and remove it being a cop. If someone attempted to come into the window of my vehicle and do harm of any kind, I'd be completely in my own right to fire my own gun in a similar manner.
Am I the only one who remembers the very first self defense shooting by a CHL holder? Similar situation? Large man attacking the driver of a van through the window of the door? That attacker was also shot and killed. Although the CHL holder did the proper thing and kept shooting while the guy was attacking and at the vehicle.
The actual evidence proved the police officer discharged his weapon after being attacked through the window of the SUV and anyone with half a brain who actually went and looked at the photos of the officers face and neck could see the bruising from Brown's attack.
No... The only account of the kid reaching for the gun came from the officer. The "facts"/"evidence" as you call it were derived from that statement and are speculative at best. AGAIN... Conflicting witness accounts would normally trigger a trail. What makes this situation different?? Originally Posted by Frique-MeBULLSHIT,
Did you bother to read through the ALL evidence? Did you take note of what was said:
"The most credible eyewitnesses to the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., said he had charged toward Police Officer Darren Wilson just before the final, fatal shots, the St. Louis County prosecutor said Monday night as he sought to explain why a grand jury had not found probable cause to indict the officer.
The accounts of several other witnesses from the Ferguson neighborhood where Mr. Brown, 18 and unarmed, met his death on Aug. 9 — including those who said Mr. Brown was trying to surrender — changed over time or were inconsistent with physical evidence, the prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch, said in a news conference.
When eye witnesses give statements that are proven false by actual evidence, to me, THAT shows a racial bias against the officer.
