The web of lies in Ferguson

[laughing dog]

Selective focus isn't necessarily interesting....

It is not interesting, but it is revealing.

 

[EPresence2]

Selective focus isn't necessarily interesting....

It is not interesting, but it is revealing.

Queue nefarious music - I think we've all heard quite enough about Wilson's racist/incompetent thought processes...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

if brown's hand was on the gun how did he get shot in the thumb?

No, trying to grab the gun.

 

[Arctish]

if brown's hand was on the gun how did he get shot in the thumb?

No, trying to grab the gun.

While it was still holstered or after Wilson drew his weapon?

 

[Testy Calibrate]

speculating on what happened inside that car is ridiculous. There isn't enough data to make a single narrative. However, now that we know that the case had to be rigged to keep a grand jury from indicting even with a biased prosecutor trying not to get an indictment, it seems pretty reasonable to assume that a trial would not have been a clear victory.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

speculating on what happened inside that car is ridiculous. There isn't enough data to make a single narrative. However, now that we know that the case had to be rigged to keep a grand jury from indicting even with a biased prosecutor trying not to get an indictment, it seems pretty reasonable to assume that a trial would not have been a clear victory.

Translation: Pay no attention to the information that undermines your position.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

speculating on what happened inside that car is ridiculous. There isn't enough data to make a single narrative. However, now that we know that the case had to be rigged to keep a grand jury from indicting even with a biased prosecutor trying not to get an indictment, it seems pretty reasonable to assume that a trial would not have been a clear victory.

Translation: Pay no attention to the information that undermines your position.

Well now. That's an odd one. I've reviewed as much information as I've come across and seen nothing that requires a single interpretation to explain. Maybe you have?

 

[EPresence2]

speculating on what happened inside that car is ridiculous. There isn't enough data to make a single narrative. However, now that we know that the case had to be rigged to keep a grand jury from indicting even with a biased prosecutor trying not to get an indictment, it seems pretty reasonable to assume that a trial would not have been a clear victory.

Of course there is no single narrative that is supported completely by the physical evidence - it's why I described at least two scenarios that fit the evidence: making one or the other out to be the "demon." So speculating on whether the grand jury was rigged or the prosecutor was manifestly biased is okay? Where is your evidence supporting that speculation as the more likely possibility?

 

[laughing dog]

Translation: Pay no attention to the information that undermines your position.

Well now. That's an odd one. I've reviewed as much information as I've come across and seen nothing that requires a single interpretation to explain. Maybe you have?

You misunderstood. LP describes the way he comes to his views.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

speculating on what happened inside that car is ridiculous. There isn't enough data to make a single narrative. However, now that we know that the case had to be rigged to keep a grand jury from indicting even with a biased prosecutor trying not to get an indictment, it seems pretty reasonable to assume that a trial would not have been a clear victory.

Of course there is no single narrative that is supported completely by the physical evidence - it's why I described at least two scenarios that fit the evidence: making one or the other out to be the "demon." So speculating on whether the grand jury was rigged or the prosecutor was manifestly biased is okay? Where is your evidence supporting that speculation as the more likely possibility?

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. We know the grand jury was rigged because we have direct evidence that it was. We don't know what happened between Brown and the cop because the evidence we have fits any number of conflicting narratives. Whether or not brown or the cop was a demon is sort of irrelevant since demon's are mythological creatures. It is quite safe to assume that both were human at the time.

 

[EPresence2]

Of course there is no single narrative that is supported completely by the physical evidence - it's why I described at least two scenarios that fit the evidence: making one or the other out to be the "demon." So speculating on whether the grand jury was rigged or the prosecutor was manifestly biased is okay? Where is your evidence supporting that speculation as the more likely possibility?

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. We know the grand jury was rigged because we have direct evidence that it was. We don't know what happened between Brown and the cop because the evidence we have fits any number of conflicting narratives. Whether or not brown or the cop was a demon is sort of irrelevant since demon's are mythological creatures. It is quite safe to assume that both were human at the time.

I haven't heard any compelling evidence yet the jury was rigged. And really, how do you know demons aren't real? Of course, the term "demons" doesn't have a single definition.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

I suppose it depends how you define "rigged" as well as how you define "demon".

What is clear is that the information was presented, some of it fraudulently, to exonerate rather than indict.

 

[EPresence2]

I suppose it depends how you define "rigged" as well as how you define "demon".

What is clear is that the information was presented, some of it fraudulently, to exonerate rather than indict.

I've read through the case files as well and noted some discrepancies that could have been simply mistakes (e.g., not getting finger prints on the gun). An accusation of fraudulence is pretty strong - I'd like to see the evidence. There probably is a tendency for grand jury decisions to fall on the side of the cop when the evidence (for probable cause) doesn't point definitely one way or the other. But that makes some degree of sense.