4 ms·

That would be true if the actions presented accurately represent those which actually occurred. Normally such determination is left for a jury to decide, not a

That would be true if the actions presented accurately represent those which actually occurred. Normally such determination is left for a jury to decide, not a grand jury.

icantthinkofone 12y ago
The actions are verified and true, both with forensics and consistencies in witness accounts. The documentation and interviews are all there and a multitude of news organizations have repeated the same thing; Michael Brown attacked a police officer who rightly defended himself. End of discussion. I thought everyone knew that by now.
- CapitalistCartr 12y ago
  I don't. Unless you were there, you don't either. The Washing ton post describes witness testimony as mixed and differing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/11/29/b99ef7a8-75d3-11e4-a755-e32227229e7b_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/11/29/b99ef7a8-7... Boing Boing says "Analysis of Michael Brown shooting witnesses: 16 out of 18 say hands up when shot". http://boingboing.net/2014/11/28/analysis-of-michael-brown-shoo.html http://boingboing.net/2014/11/28/analysis-of-michael-brown-s... Smugness isn't an argument.
  - icantthinkofone 12y ago
    You are counting people who are making claims without considering credibility. If you read any of the documentation, or comments by the news organization who actually analyzed the statements, you would find almost all of them also admitted they had never seen the event and were only repeating what others told them or what they heard on the radio. Some of these accounts also did not line up with each other or match the forensics. So you might be interested in this from the AP (and not Boing Boing): http://bigstory.ap.org/article/078c82ad45ff4ec6aa1c7744dfa7df14/grand-jury-documents-rife-inconsistencies http://bigstory.ap.org/article/078c82ad45ff4ec6aa1c7744dfa7d... And also this from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014... fwiw, CNN had a one hour back pedaling with two criminal defense attorneys, today, stating the same things. It's one thing to collect a bunch of people who tell you things. It's another for those accounts to be accurate, consistent among each other, and match the physical evidence.
- shakethemonkey 12y ago
  My point was more that it is highly unusual for GRAND juries to make these determinations.

That would be true if the actions presented accurately represent those which actually occurred. Normally such determination is left for a jury to decide, not a grand jury.

icantthinkofone 12y ago

The actions are verified and true, both with forensics and consistencies in witness accounts. The documentation and interviews are all there and a multitude of news organizations have repeated the same thing; Michael Brown attacked a police officer who rightly defended himself. End of discussion. I thought everyone knew that by now.

CapitalistCartr 12y ago
I don't. Unless you were there, you don't either. The Washing ton post describes witness testimony as mixed and differing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/11/29/b99ef7a8-75d3-11e4-a755-e32227229e7b_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/11/29/b99ef7a8-7... Boing Boing says "Analysis of Michael Brown shooting witnesses: 16 out of 18 say hands up when shot". http://boingboing.net/2014/11/28/analysis-of-michael-brown-shoo.html http://boingboing.net/2014/11/28/analysis-of-michael-brown-s... Smugness isn't an argument.
- icantthinkofone 12y ago
  You are counting people who are making claims without considering credibility. If you read any of the documentation, or comments by the news organization who actually analyzed the statements, you would find almost all of them also admitted they had never seen the event and were only repeating what others told them or what they heard on the radio. Some of these accounts also did not line up with each other or match the forensics. So you might be interested in this from the AP (and not Boing Boing): http://bigstory.ap.org/article/078c82ad45ff4ec6aa1c7744dfa7df14/grand-jury-documents-rife-inconsistencies http://bigstory.ap.org/article/078c82ad45ff4ec6aa1c7744dfa7d... And also this from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014... fwiw, CNN had a one hour back pedaling with two criminal defense attorneys, today, stating the same things. It's one thing to collect a bunch of people who tell you things. It's another for those accounts to be accurate, consistent among each other, and match the physical evidence.
shakethemonkey 12y ago
My point was more that it is highly unusual for GRAND juries to make these determinations.