I would imagine the goal of a racially fair society would be fair and just treatment for all, not 'payback'. Or is that where its at? MLK Jr. Would be v proud.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now some poor Bosnian guy got attacked with a hammer near Ferguson and left in the road to die? Will our attorney general investigate that? What makes a hate crime but hatefulness.

Of course not. "If the victim's white, don't indict." That is what this administration means by "justice" and "stay the course."

This administration is clearly racist from the Black Panthers to Big Al being a fixture to sending three to the funeral of Michael Brown who attacked a police officier.

Surely this isn't the first "clearly racist" administration in this country's history - why so perturbed; what you mad cause the shoes on the other foot for a change?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now some poor Bosnian guy got attacked with a hammer near Ferguson and left in the road to die? Will our attorney general investigate that? What makes a hate crime but hatefulness.

Of course not. "If the victim's white, don't indict." That is what this administration means by "justice" and "stay the course."

This administration is clearly racist from the Black Panthers to Big Al being a fixture to sending three to the funeral of Michael Brown who attacked a police officier.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/02/why-michael-browns-best-friends-story-is-incredible/


Analysis of Johnson's changing testimony. He was charged with lying to the police in an earlier incident. You'd think he would learn.

Anonymous wrote:Now some poor Bosnian guy got attacked with a hammer near Ferguson and left in the road to die? Will our attorney general investigate that? What makes a hate crime but hatefulness.

Of course not. "If the victim's white, don't indict." That is what this administration means by "justice" and "stay the course."

Now some poor Bosnian guy got attacked with a hammer near Ferguson and left in the road to die? Will our attorney general investigate that? What makes a hate crime but hatefulness.

He was a thief and a thug. Rob a store and getting shot is likely a consequence.

Did someone already post this? Interesting summary of all the conflicting witness statements.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/

https://news.yahoo.com/why-charles-barkley-supports-ferguson-grand-jury-decision-163736319.html

Interesting. Common sense comments. His comments on Peterson were revealing, too. (I don't agree with Peterson's actions, but it was accepted discipline at one time.)

or the residue from the gun on the robber michael brown's ahnds read the autopsy report. how could a person not attacking him get so close that the residue is on his hands hmmmmmm

Did you see how that forensic evidence was handled? Ever seen a suspect bag his own gun and wash his hands? Is a suspect usually allowed to drive off on his own?

No question that was mishandled. However, I don't think that Wilson took the bloody spots on the ground with him. Neither did he take the casings that were on the ground.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If there is conflicting testimony, there are no "facts," even though you like to disregard all testimony that is contrary to your beliefs.

Please go read the testimony, then. Many of those who said the hands were up, admitted that they really had not seen that. Since you don't believe the forensics, go read the testimony.

The forensic evidence does not have an agenda, human bias, or inherent human errata.

The "testimony," - not so much.

Did you see how that forensic evidence was handled? Ever seen a suspect bag his own gun and wash his hands? Is a suspect usually allowed to drive off on his own?

Anonymous wrote:

If there is conflicting testimony, there are no "facts," even though you like to disregard all testimony that is contrary to your beliefs.

Please go read the testimony, then. Many of those who said the hands were up, admitted that they really had not seen that. Since you don't believe the forensics, go read the testimony.

The forensic evidence does not have an agenda, human bias, or inherent human errata.

The "testimony," - not so much.

If there is conflicting testimony, there are no "facts," even though you like to disregard all testimony that is contrary to your beliefs.

Please go read the testimony, then. Many of those who said the hands were up, admitted that they really had not seen that. Since you don't believe the forensics, go read the testimony.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michael Brown didn't submit to anything - that's why he was shot.

No, he was shot because he attacked a police officer and tried to take the officer's gun; then he charged full speed at the officer.

And no, the facts demonstrate that his hands were not up.

If there is conflicting testimony, there are no "facts," even though you like to disregard all testimony that is contrary to your beliefs.

What about forensics and physical evidence, especially as it relates to testimony?