Summations Only

Here's a Washington Post story that says there were six or seven black witnesses who supported Darren Wilson's testimony.And here's The Huffington Post reporting the same thing, although they also have a video of Brown's friend, who had just helped him rob the convenience store, giving a completely other story about how Wilson pulled Brown through the window of his police car.So the white woman's testimony may not be much of a part if at all anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nope, hers was the only story that 'dovetailed' with Wilson's account. With her dubious character & a prosecutor unwilling to highlight any discrepencies with her statements, it was left to the GJ to suss out any problems with her testimony.The other witness' statements you reference are 'consistent with Wilson's testimony', according to sources. I'll bet those sources are linked to the prosecutor's office. That only tells us one side - again, more reason to have a trial where witnesses are identified & cross examined. It's so easy for this prosecutor to lead the witnesses - we all know about the 'ham sandwich' joke.

You are making an ad hominem argument here, about the "sources" you assume are linked to the prosecutor's office and must not be telling the truth. You sound like Cat Sci who doesn't know anything but is sure the grand jury is all a lie to protect the cops. I wish there would be a trial at this point, not because I think the grand jury was at fault but because of all the distrust of it. I wish you would all have to see and acknowledge that Darren Wilson is innocent just as the grand jury concluded. HOWEVER, if I'm wrong then I want to know the facts.Perhaps the DOJ investigation will come up with the truth.

Words. There are none.

That's because you don't know how to make appropriate distinctions same as all your PC friends here. [Msg=275] You need a good reason to suspect a conspiracy, not just that Oh it's just the cops, of course they're going to lie.

Instead of creating strawmen how about you address the actual arguments people are making. You might want to start by reading the actual words people post, not the crazy words you are making up in your head.

And yet it did turn out that there was a problem with the grand jury hearing, whereas, to take an example at random, the Jesuits didn't assassinate Lincoln. I guess my "PC friends" just got lucky, eh?

Meanwhile ...

You might start by making sense.

Just never stops does it. One irrelevant accusation after another. PC never sleeps, it just has to vilify SOMEBODY.

Lets see if you have actually read what people posted. Start by summarizing the argument CatSci is making. Maybe I am wrong maybe you do understand what he posted. The problem is you have never addressed his argument. You just respond with batshit crazy stuff.

Cat Sci gave a little speech outlining leftist ideology, all formula, generalization, accusing the cops of crime plus lying about it without knowing one thing about what happened that provoked the protests.

The Jesuits did assassinate Lincoln but you'll never know it.

No. That is not is argument. You have constructed a strawman. How about reading his words. Maybe slowly, it might help.ABE
He is going to get a good laugh being called a leftist. I do think he has moderated the last few years and is much more centrist than he used to be. Maybe someday we will get him over to left. One can hope.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.