The Grand Jury process is part of the legal system; the same legal system that *failed* 68% of California's population, racially-speaking and 50%, genderly-speaking almost 20 years ago.


The Grand Jury is not allowed to ignore the law and vote to prosecute someone when THEIR law clearly states that citizens may shoot-to-kill someone IF they think that other person is going to commit a felony.

The Grand Jury could also not ignore the law and vote to prosecute someone when THEIR law clearly states an officer may shoot-to-kill a fleeing suspect.


Period. "Whether [*you*] like it or not." A Grand Jury decision that ignores the law to give *you* what *you* want is an illegal decision and will not stand.

They couldn't return the acquittal *you* so desperately wanted; the legal system is not allowed to do illegal things to mete out illegal justice.


CHANGE THE LAWS THAT MAKE UP THE LEGAL SYSTEM. Do NOT expect the judicial system to operate illegally to appease the misinformed and [deliberately] ignorant masses, screaming for an illegal justice.

President Obama is in an extremely POOR position in all of this; it's his panel conducting the Federal inquiry, after all. He is also aware that the Grand Jury of Missouri followed the laws in effect in their state, while facing a melting pot of opinions based on EVERYone's opinion based on their (lack of knowledge of their) own local laws.

The problem in Ferguson is with their current laws, which DO disproportionately *target* non-whites within their jurisdiction. THAT'S what needs to be fixed. All the burning down of buildings and destroying public property isn't going to change one single law which allows private citizens to shoot-to-kill anyone they believe is going to commit a felony. It's also not going to change the law which allows police, while on-duty, to shoot-to-kill a fleeing suspect.




I am still waiting for SOMEone, ANYone to comment on the difference in the "lack of justice" as it occurred in October 1995 vs. how it was delivered in November 2014.


In 1995, we were told "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit"; people didn't destroy Beverly Hills to express their displeasure over the decision. After rumbling and bitching and complaining, they accepted that the judicial process which was in place had *worked* and so they got to changing the laws regarding domestic violence to ensure there'd be no repeat performance in the court rooms.



Yet, almost 20 years later, we're being expected to accept that it's different this time, now that the glove is on the other foot.


Guess it just depends on which fat lady is singing which tune, when it's all over.


~sigh~

Yup, yup. They keep it tacked up right next to Jesse's pic.





In their defense, though, they sleep with a picture of President Obama pinned to their pillows; that's how they come up with all their *good* stuff on him:



in their dreams.

<--- Mighty *impactful*

Sorry, panchovanilla...let me say it in Spanish for ya:


NO

NO

You're assuming "equal" means "same as"; in this context, "equal" means "equivalent to".

A fox and wolf are not the same; they are completely different species.



Newsflash: women and men ARE the same species, "whether we like it or not".

No. I. Won't.

Really? So, Islam only allows beating of their women UNTIL they give birth and then they can start up again once the children have left the home?


I

did

not

know

that.

While I agree with most of your sentiments, I more find it hard to believe that someone would enter a room in real life and say, "Hai! N E 1 wanna ****?" or "Hai! Will u b mi gf???"


It's a two-way street.


THOSE are the ones I "jump on". It's not a language barrier, it's a cultural one, at best. They wouldn't DREAM of speaking to women in their own country that way, so they come to U.S.-based online *dating* sites and talk that way to the 'loose, whorish' American women.

I respond online the exact same way I would in real life; one can't expect anything else when "keeping it real", which should be a desired quality ESpecially when online.

You're probably not hearing from any "GIRL", because this site requires members to be at least 18 years of age.

Raise your site sights and see what happens.


Best of luck to you, once you do!

based on the forensic evidence and ALL eyewitness testimonies.


The forensic evidence proves Mr. Brown was shot in/at the car; his body tissue was found inside the car and outside the car door. The forensic evidence proves he WAS moving away; the drops of blood show a clear trail for a distance. The officer has testified Brown WAS going away and then turned back and charged at him. Guess what? The forensic evidence backs up the officer's and other eyewitnesses' claims: the trail of blood indicates a doubling back and THEN the pool of blood formed when Officer Wilson shot him for the final times.


By the way, Missouri's laws allow for a person to use lethal force even if they just think a person is GOING to commit a felony. Striking an officer IS a felony in the state of Missouri.


More bad news: even if your preferred-fairy-tale-version of the events WAS correct (that Officer Wilson shot Mr. Brown while he was running away), Missouri law allows police officers, while in the line of duty, TO shoot fleeing suspects.


You want to be upset about something? DON'T be upset with the Grand Jury who followed the law, as it's currently written, when deciding if an officer worked within the law while enforcing the law when stopping a (now-confirmed guilty) suspect who broke the law.

Work to CHANGE the current laws which allow the police to use deadly force in far too many situations which WILL be used disproportionately against non-whites within their jurisdiction.

Nahhhh...as you, yourself, said earlier, "Even police can lie to save their butts and are f2f dry good at coercing witnesses to agree."


Those same police can edit the video and/or coerce others to do it for them.



Best that you only believe that which says what you want to hear (i.e., eyewitnesses whose testimonies change, admit they never saw anything but only repeated what they'd heard others say, and/or who claim things that forensic evidence doesn't support),


than film footage that proves *The Truth* to be anything but.



The Grand Jury listened to Dorian Johnson's testimony; he was the one who was side-by-side with Mr. Brown as everything went down. The news channel I'm currently watching is showing video of his earlier statements and comparing them with the testimony provided to the Grand Jury.



Two completely different stories. Obviously, he's telling *The Truth*. Or, the COPS got to him.

Got it. Charging AT someone 3 times, including even after being shot, is "running away", in your language.




Thank you for proving my earlier point about why cameras on officers will prove completely useless.

Why do you keep saying this...that Mr. Brown was running away?

According to Officer Wilson and an eyewitness, Mr. Brown was shot while charging AT the officer; according to at least one eyewitness' testimony (as well as Officer Wilson's), he charged at least 3 times, including AFTER being told to get down, repeatedly, AND after being shot. When asked if the charge was at a trot or full speed, the eyewitness reported it was "full on".

According to the eyewitness, when asked where Mr. Brown's hands were, he responded he didn't remember exactly, but they were for sure not over his head.



EVERYbody, except the eyewitnesses whose testimonies keep changing and are in conflict with one another AND in conflict with actual forensic evidence, is lying?!?

The news I'm watching is now reading the officer's testimony of the events; VERY different and VERY threatening, including grabbing the officer's gun after pulling it and being told to get down. He grabbed the gun barrel and shoved it into the officer's hip and leg.

Officer Wilson told Mr. Brown at least 3 times to get down and he continued to struggle and come at him.


Of course, the officer obviously lied. The eyewitnesses, who later admitted they didn't see the whole thing, reported only what they'd heard (from others) happened and/or changed their stories, are telling *The Truth*.




Oh, a Dollar Store is now being looted.

In one frame of overhead filming, two cop cars are on fire.

A Walgreens has been set on fire after being broken into; the neighboring Aaron's and US Bank have been broken into, also.

How often do the perps filmed on COPS reach for the officers' guns?


Oh, and by the way, do NOT believe that COPS is reality TV; it is VERY heavily edited...and the [supervisors of the] COPS get final say in what's shown and what's not. Albuquerque refused to stop allowing them to film there, because the show was giving their city a bad name.




Does your legal training come from watching hours of COPS on TV?!? Or, is it simply supplemented by it?

I agree with body cameras.

However, if previous *arguments* are any indication, when the camera shows what others don't want to see,

the police department will be accused of having altered the evidence to protect their own.


Eyewitness testimony that says that which we've decided we want to hear, no matter how contradictory nor how much it changes, will continue to be *The Truth* in the face of all evidence to the contrary.


And, if the past is any indication, the sheer insanity of it all will simply fuel more insanity to *justify* the means to the end.

There's standoffs happening as far away as Seattle being reported, too. The city of Philadelphia is also reporting problems.



On a brighter note, the city of Stockton, which LOVES a good brawl, is relatively quiet. At least where I live, anyway. For now, anyway.