Posted on 08/22/2014 5:41:23 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The writer assumes facts not necessarily in evidence - that justice is the goal in the case of officer Wilson.
RE: that justice is the goal in the case of officer Wilson.
Many people claimed that justice was NOT the goal in the Trayvon Martin case.
Well, it looks like justice did prevail then... we’ll see.
It shouldn't be but there are polar opposite goals, when, as you said, justice should be the goal.
That said, I hope the policeman is completely exonerated. A normal life for him is no longer an option, in either case.
The JustUs brothers will find a few victim “witnesses” to “testify” on TV and then disappear.. they always do.
The writer doesn’t understand that the mob didn’t want justice, it wanted a lynching.
This writer must not have gotten the memo.
Evidence, facts, details, none of that matters. Obama and Holder want JUSTUS and they will get it no matter what. If the local do not convict this officer of a crime the Feds will step in with the old catch all civil rights violation. This Officer is going down make no mistake about that..
Black ISIS wants a white scalp!
Justice has NOTHING to do with anything anymore.
As soon as exonerated, Wilson should head elsewhere for a loooooooooooooooooooooong vacation. And FU to our racist ‘just-us’ department.
You are right, we shall see.
Your Bias is showing, Mr. Cooke.
Officer Wilson is not officially a defendant except in the minds of black moochers, rioters, criminals, race pimps, racists and other low-life’s.
One or more of those descriptive terms easily includes people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder, Barack Obama, Governor Nixon, Highway Patrolman Captain Ron Johnson, and the entire Obama Media.
Jumping to conclusions is not the same as forming a working hypothesis by applying reason to the best available facts.
Do presence of drugs in Brown’s system, the strong-arm robbery video, autopsy evidence that proves significant parts of the “witnesses’” statements false, injuries to Wilson’s face, the audio recording of an eye witness saying Brown ran back at Wilson, etc., “insinuate guilt” on Brown’s part unreasonably? A rational person cannot look at available facts and conclude that Wilson was at fault here. If new evidence emerges, conclusions might need to change. What is wrong is not making rational judgements. It is taking action on preliminary information WHEN YOU DO NOT HAVE TO. Accordingly, I am not rioting or looting, or advocating arrest of Wilson absent evidence. Some people are. Are we equivalent?
But, but, but...his eye socket's bone wasn't BROKEN...he face was only swollen up from the assault he suffered at the hands of the marijuana blunt-smoking thief. So how can that be???? (sniff....sniff....holding back tears....)
The only credible witness will be the one supporting the government narrative.
I don’t think that reality and the facts are going to play a part in what is about to occur in Missouri. Nixon wants the lynching of a crackah to pacify his voter/looter base and he’s going to get it.
Conflicting testimonies generally favor the defendant... except with the governor of the state in which that trial would occur has openly sided with the prosection and has given every indication he’s going to be influential.
This whole fiasco is the result of the City of Ferguson releasing NO information. Information vacuums will always be filled. When good people go silent, liberals start screaming lies.
If the altercation occurred as a result of Brown attacking Wilson through the car window, and if a round was fired during that attack, then there is a large likelihood that the round did not leave the car.
There's some possibility that the round fired from inside the car, if there was one, hit Brown in the arm, and then ended up outside the car somewhere. But even that would leave some gunshot residue inside the car that would not be there otherwise, not to mention the high speed blood spatter that would have occurred.
Part of the problem in this case is that the police have been far too slow to release such information. It has served them badly to withhold such evidence and leaves open the possibility that no such evidence exists, or that when such evidence is presented it will not be believed.
One can certainly argue with the O.J. jury's decision, but there is no doubt that the police failed to properly label evidence, failed to maintain proper custody of evidence, failed to timely secure evidence, failed to conduct thorough searches, and committed perjury. It is hard for me to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that all of this was just incompetence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.