<p>The court of public opinion is most surely being fed some spoiled meat. Not much explanation otherwise, when facts aren’t really facts at all but rather personal beliefs reported by someone else as facts.</p>
<p>Sometimes not even fact, but metaphor, which some consider just as valid:
Simply unbelievable.</p>
<p>zoosermom hits it right between the eyes, with: “… but he would have been forgotten quickly because his death wouldn’t have been useful to the vampires who profit from racial conflict.”</p>
<p>“What line would you draw for a police officer to defend himself? Presumably, most people know that officers are armed. At. What point do you think they can defend themselves? Would running away be better?”</p>
<p>I think it’s asinine that there is actually a meme going around that a police officer shouldn’t be able to defend himself. </p>
<p>Some people actually do think Officer Wilson should have just driven away. I wonder how often cops actually do that. See some criminal activity and just pretend not to notice because it’s going to be a problem and they want to go home that night. And, you can’t really blame then one bit. As for the forensic evidence most compelling to me is the blood trail that shows the suspect moving forward toward the officer until the final forehead shot. He got too close. He was not running away. That is proven. Whether hands were out in an effort to lunge at the officer or up in surrender can be argued about by experts, I suppose. But they’re not. Instead, they have shifter as noted above to calling it a symbol. So fine, I’ll go with that.</p>
<p>There was a piece of Brown’s skin in the car. Gun residue was found in Brown’s hand indicating he was very close to the gun when it was fired, etc. It’s getting old.</p>
<p>So he’s close enough to leave DNA in the car, and because there are no prints ON the gun, it’s somehow unbelievable that the officer felt threatened enough to use force? The prints have to be ON the weapon that is meant to protect the officer before he has cause to use it? </p>
<p>I sleep better at night knowing that my kids are not police officers if this is what it’s come to.</p>
<p>If his hands were in the car and he was not (and we know that the officer and gun were), what does that tell you? there was no reason other than aggression for Michael Brown’s hands to be in the police car. </p>
<p>A big part of Wilson’s premise about being in imminent danger is based on the claim that Brown grabbed his gun.</p>
<p>For the millionth time, this is why there should be a jury trial in this case, IMO. It might very well exonerate Wilson once he is cross-examined and the inconsistencies/gaps/procedural lapses are explained. Or not.</p>
<p>No one has ANY business reaching towards an officers gun. Sorry, not buying this as a reason for trial. There may be other arguments that have basis, but not this one.</p>
<p>It is a heartbreaking tragedy that MIchael Brown is dead. Maybe he would have turned his life around, but with the violence in his family and in his personality, it seems more likely that someone would have killed him or he would have killed someone else. Personally, I’m glad that Officer Wilson lived to be demonized by the racial grievance mongers. I’m confident that the situation could have gone either way. Once you’ve struck an officer, you’ve crossed a line into voilence and someone is probably going to get hurt. Michael didn’t have to do that, he made a choice and it was he who paid the consequences. Sad, but that’s actual justice.</p>
<p>And for the millionth time, we don’t stage show trials for public relations purposes in this country.</p>
<p>Just curious. If the federal investigation doesn’t bring charges, who will be to blame then? Will that be the point at which people accept that this specific case wasn’t representative of the racial history and abuse suffered by black people in this country?</p>
<p>Didn’t Brown have gun shot wound(s) on his hand?And there was a piece of skin in the car. Calling his hand was very close is a conservative statement. Brown also assaulted the officer hitting him on the cheeks with his fist. I don’t know what other conclusion one can draw.</p>
<p>It’s not might be, it is underway and it hasn’t turned up much of anything according to leaks. They could keep the federal investigation going forever.That’s my prediction. And, it’s based on precedent. There’s no case here. </p>
<p>At this point, it’s rolling on and it doesn’t matter who the poster child is any more. Oops, okay, well, there IS a problem, we all know that, so we may as well move forward now and address that issue. JMO.</p>
<p>I simply cannot “get”, understand, comprehend those here defending M. Brown. It’s like arguing whether it’s daytime right now. It kinda creeps me out for people to defend a criminal just because he is black the same as it creeps me out for people to target an innocent victim just because he is black.</p>
<p>I agree with you VaBluebird. I mean, I get why folks like Sharpton, who profit from these disasters would be defending Michael Brown – there’s money in that, but not people who are seriously concerned about the abuse of black men in our society, which is a serious problem. Every time I see Sharpton with the parents of Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown, I can’t help but wonder if they understand how happy he is that their sons are dead. I just want to scream “he does not care about you!”</p>