Ferguson

[rothdawg]

Nice job here, Dean. The new ratings king!

[rdog5]

So many people think that just because Al shows up, he's automatically speaking for all of us. Al Sharpton doesn't speak for me. There are crime problems in every community of every race and color, and to try and lessen the actions of a Darren Wilson by stating that Blacks kill other Blacks, and attempting to chastise the Black community for the crime within is tacky at best. It's like that tired argument that if Black people don't want other races to say the N-word, then they need to stop using it themselves. Black people could all stop saying that word tomorrow, and the racists who still want to use it to describe Blacks are still going to say it. The better question to ask is why are young Black men immediately seen as more threatening than their White counterparts, whether they're committing a crime or not.

The funny thing is many are saying this is race related based on no evidence whatsoever. To judge someone's actions based on the color of their skin is just as bad as judging their intention based on their profession. Rid yourself of bias and open your mind to the facts. In this case all the hyperbole doesn't matter since their is physical evidence that either corroborates or invalidates eye witness testimony.

1. District Attorney knows that if he makes an outright decision it will be criticized. Instead he makes the decision to use a grand jury. In doing so he presented the grand jury with all the evidence available so 12 people could make an informed decision. He used it more as an investigative grand jury then a charging grand jury. You can disagree with the process but the fact that anybody would want a District Attorney to lead jurors into a specific charge is injustice even though it occurs everyday.

2. Indisputable that a physical assault occurred within the vehicle causing a gun to be fired. It is a felony to assault an officer. You can come to your own conclusions how it started but in my mind for an officer to reach out his window and pull a man inside his car puts him at a severe disadvantage. Throw out size as it doesn't matter that much and it was simply an assault on an officer.

3. Blood evidence shows fleeing felon who got to a point then turned and came back toward the officer. An officer who was just assaulted is then facing another assault and use of deadly force is authorized. Perfect scenario he gave verbal commands but all that relies on witness recollection which is suspect.

4. Autopsy, both prosecution and private, both show hands up don't shoot was not in play here. Neither autopsy showed that to be a fact.

5. Very important here is when eye witnesses decide to embellish their story and those embellishments are proven false by physical and forensic evidence then the whole testimony is in question. This is why several witnesses said he was shot in the back but once autopsy report was released, no others came forward.

If anybody listened throwing out their own personal bias which means to hear the words and not choose that they mean other then what is said, only one conclusion can be reached. You can argue that maybe he should not have feared for his life but can't say he did not fear for his life.

I will leave you with a simple question, if you would wake up at night with a person breaking into your residence, real that you are trapped in your room, would you shoot? You don't have to prove that you were actually in a life threatening position just that you thought you were!

[Hurricane Dean]

Nice job here, Dean. The new ratings king!

Thanks Dawg! Happy Thanksgiving!