I am greatly disappointed that the Grand Jury decision to not indict was released at night

The Dude wrote:

The grand jury is not convened to realize an indictment but rather the truth and that WAS realized.

The Dude wrote:The grand jury did their job.

Sal wrote:

The Dude wrote:The grand jury did their job.  

They couldn't do their job properly because there was no prosecutor to guide them.

The Dude wrote:Reading this report now it's really obvious what happened. Punching a policeman through his cruiser windown is never a good idea Huh sal?

The Dude wrote:Reading this report now it's really obvious what happened. Punching a policeman through his cruiser windown is never a good idea Huh sal?

gatorfan wrote:

The Dude wrote:Reading this report now it's really obvious what happened. Punching a policeman through his cruiser windown is never a good idea Huh sal?

Sal is floundering around because his preconceived notion of GUILTY BEFORE TRIAL (for whites anyway) was found to be wrong when the facts came out. Of course he displays a remarkable ability to ignore facts.....

Bob wrote:

Sal wrote:

I know you don't realize it, but your reply is sopping with white privilege.

"Stupid, black folks.  Why won't they buy into the system just because it's declares open season on their kids???"

I'm a member of a much smaller minority than the black minority,  Sal.
A minority which is despised by the majority of whites and blacks and ESPECIALLY blacks.

I don't get to experience all the same "white privelege" you do.  My minority will never be represented by any local elected official period.  And my minority is not currently the highest elected official in the land.

I agree with a blogger who commented on that ThinkProgress article...

gatorfan wrote:
Sal is floundering around because his preconceived notion of GUILTY BEFORE TRIAL (for whites anyway) was found to be wrong when the facts came out.

Sal wrote:

The Dude wrote:Reading this report now it's really obvious what happened. Punching a policeman through his cruiser windown is never a good idea Huh sal?

If he was punched through the driver's side window as he claimed, shouldn't the discoloration appear on the left-side of his face?

The Dude wrote:

Read the docs Michael Brown's tissue was on the cruiser. Meaning he was at the window of the cruiser. Evidence is plain

Joanimaroni wrote:
Why not? If Brown had him by the neck and the officer had his head facing him it would be logical to hit him on the right side of his face.

Sal wrote:

The Dude wrote:

Read the docs Michael Brown's tissue was on the cruiser. Meaning he was at the window of the cruiser. Evidence is plain

No one ever denied that there was a struggle at the vehicle.

No one.

Way to knock that strawman around tho, ...

... dumbass.

Sal wrote:

gatorfan wrote:
Sal is floundering around because his preconceived notion of GUILTY BEFORE TRIAL (for whites anyway) was found to be wrong when the facts came out.

There was no trial, idiot.

That's the problem.

Floridatexan wrote:

Your minority is also not readily apparent just by looking at you.  

Joanimaroni wrote:

Sal wrote:

The Dude wrote:

Read the docs Michael Brown's tissue was on the cruiser. Meaning he was at the window of the cruiser. Evidence is plain

No one ever denied that there was a struggle at the vehicle.

No one.

Way to knock that strawman around tho, ...

... dumbass.

Are you sure Sal? Seems like you changed your mind when the autopsy showed Brown's DNA in the cruiser. I would swear you denied the officer was attacked.  Seaoat claimed the officer was trying to pull Brown through the window of the cruiser.....a 6'4 300 pounder.

gatorfan wrote:

Sal wrote:

gatorfan wrote:
Sal is floundering around because his preconceived notion of GUILTY BEFORE TRIAL (for whites anyway) was found to be wrong when the facts came out.

There was no trial, idiot.

That's the problem.

You really are an ignorant moron. Of course there was no trial.. That statement referred to your preconceived finding of guilt without knowing any facts. Or looked at another way - your preconceived notion of probable cause without considering the facts.

You hate it because you didn't get to see an innocent whitey burned at the stake.

Good thing you aren't a lawyer because you would be as shitty at that as you are attempting to defend your miserably inaccurate opinions.

You really are pathetic - and to think I thought it was an act at first.....

knothead wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

Sal wrote:

gatorfan wrote:
Sal is floundering around because his preconceived notion of GUILTY BEFORE TRIAL (for whites anyway) was found to be wrong when the facts came out.

There was no trial, idiot.

That's the problem.

You really are an ignorant moron. Of course there was no trial.. That statement referred to your preconceived finding of guilt without knowing any facts. Or looked at another way - your preconceived notion of probable cause without considering the facts.

You hate it because you didn't get to see an innocent whitey burned at the stake.

Good thing you aren't a lawyer because you would be as shitty at that as you are attempting to defend your miserably inaccurate opinions.

You really are pathetic - and to think I thought it was an act at first.....

We've all heard the refrain that a grand jury can indict "a ham sandwich" right? In this case the prosecutor acted as a defense attorney rather than the role of states attorney because there were a number of charges that could have brought that meet the standards for an indictment but there was not a voice in the proceeding speaking for the man child (who I concede had no respect for authority).  My point is simply that an indictment could have been brought had the states attorney wanted one . . . he evidently did not.  

Sal wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:
Why not? If Brown had him by the neck and the officer had his head facing him it would be logical to hit him on the right side of his face.

That's not how Wilson described what happened.

Now, you're just pulling shit out of your ass.

Sal wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Sal wrote:

The Dude wrote:

Read the docs Michael Brown's tissue was on the cruiser. Meaning he was at the window of the cruiser. Evidence is plain

No one ever denied that there was a struggle at the vehicle.

No one.

Way to knock that strawman around tho, ...

... dumbass.

Are you sure Sal? Seems like you changed your mind when the autopsy showed Brown's DNA in the cruiser. I would swear you denied the officer was attacked.  Seaoat claimed the officer was trying to pull Brown through the window of the cruiser.....a 6'4 300 pounder.

I never changed my mind.

There is no disagreement that there was a struggle at the vehicle.

The disagreement was in the nature of the struggle.

Some testified that Brown was just struggling to escape, and some testified the two were fighting.

Some testified that Wilson went to open the door, it hit Brown, and bounced back hitting Wilson.

Some testified that Brown punched Wilson through the window.

The "injury" to his face is more consistent with the former.

knothead wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

Sal wrote:

gatorfan wrote:
Sal is floundering around because his preconceived notion of GUILTY BEFORE TRIAL (for whites anyway) was found to be wrong when the facts came out.

There was no trial, idiot.

That's the problem.

You really are an ignorant moron. Of course there was no trial.. That statement referred to your preconceived finding of guilt without knowing any facts. Or looked at another way - your preconceived notion of probable cause without considering the facts.

You hate it because you didn't get to see an innocent whitey burned at the stake.

Good thing you aren't a lawyer because you would be as shitty at that as you are attempting to defend your miserably inaccurate opinions.

You really are pathetic - and to think I thought it was an act at first.....

We've all heard the refrain that a grand jury can indict "a ham sandwich" right? In this case the prosecutor acted as a defense attorney rather than the role of states attorney because there were a number of charges that could have brought that meet the standards for an indictment but there was not a voice in the proceeding speaking for the man child (who I concede had no respect for authority).  My point is simply that an indictment could have been brought had the states attorney wanted one . . . he evidently did not.  

gatorfan wrote:

knothead wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

Sal wrote:

gatorfan wrote:
Sal is floundering around because his preconceived notion of GUILTY BEFORE TRIAL (for whites anyway) was found to be wrong when the facts came out.

There was no trial, idiot.

That's the problem.

You really are an ignorant moron. Of course there was no trial.. That statement referred to your preconceived finding of guilt without knowing any facts. Or looked at another way - your preconceived notion of probable cause without considering the facts.

You hate it because you didn't get to see an innocent whitey burned at the stake.

Good thing you aren't a lawyer because you would be as shitty at that as you are attempting to defend your miserably inaccurate opinions.

You really are pathetic - and to think I thought it was an act at first.....

We've all heard the refrain that a grand jury can indict "a ham sandwich" right? In this case the prosecutor acted as a defense attorney rather than the role of states attorney because there were a number of charges that could have brought that meet the standards for an indictment but there was not a voice in the proceeding speaking for the man child (who I concede had no respect for authority).  My point is simply that an indictment could have been brought had the states attorney wanted one . . . he evidently did not.  

This was an instantly politically charged incident with the race card being thrown all over the streets. The prosecutor probably felt the evidence he had didn't merit filing charges he couldn't prove in court. The smart move was to move it to a grand jury and let them determine independently whether the incident merited charges. They did not find such evidence.

It's pitiful that people can't accept that simple fact.