Summations Only

As no one has ever presented evidence it would be silly to even consider such a thing. It would make as much sense to say that Easter Islanders did consider the evidence we have for both scenarios.

As a matter of fact, I posted the wrong thing by accident. Still, that's an actual tweet by an actual cop, so if I'm vilifying him just by showing you what he wrote without any comment on it ... well, isn't that more like he's vilifying himself? I didn't say anything, that's all him.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Ah yes the usual stupid moral equivalence I just answered, no ability to distinguish between wild conspiracy thinking and evidenced conspiracies. I think some of those IQ marbles of yours rolled out your ears while you were asleep.

Igt's ME you're vilifying by posting something like that as if it's relevant to anything I've said.

How does a post about a tweet by a cop in San Jose vilify you?

... which turned out to be true, Faith. ... which turned out to be made up. Faith, this isn't "equivalence", "moral" or otherwise. Listen carefully. The people who said the grand jury hearing was flaky turned out on examination to be absolutely correct. The people who said that Jesuits assassinated Lincoln turned out on examination to be full of it. In no way am I saying that they are equivalent. I'm saying they're different. Opposite. Not the same. Disparate. Night and day. Not equivalent.

Not everything is about you. Things which aren't replies to your posts are particularly unlikely to be about you. And Faith, when you find yourself complaining that the things you think are about you aren't relevant to anything you've said, that's another sign that maybe it's not about you.

Oh get off it. Do you ever try to be fair about anything I say? Of course not. You didn't reply directly to me but you replied in the context of posts that were addressed to me and I have no idea why you'd post that if not to try to smear me with that guy's attitude. It's a pretty common strategy around here after all. And you've done it to me many times in this very thread already. I'll track it down if I have to. This is a thread where I know I'll be treated as racist if I dare say anything against the protests, and that has been happening.And back to that subject. No the grand jury has NOT been shown to be "flaky." Oohchild posted information about one witness who sounds like her testimony should be eliminated and she be prosecuted for perjury. But the case against this witness isn't all that hard and fast either. And certainly there is no case against the "six or seven black witnesses" whose testimony supported Wilson's account, as reported by the Wash Post and the Huff Post above. Oohchild did what everybody on your side has been doing, dismissing the testimony just because it was given to the grand jury, which is assumed -- assumed -- to be corrupt. No evidence that it is, it's assumed. PC ideology says it must be so it is, that's the whole of the argument here. That one witness should probably be ignored, but if she is there are others that nobody has shown to be lying, just slinging accusations against them in typical PC style.I'm all for trying to pin down the truth by going above the grand jury if necessary and possible. Have at it.

Faith, why do you even mention the Huffington Post story ? The claim about the "6 or 7" witnesses is just repeating the Washington Post. "The Washington Post says..." is fine. Adding "and the Huffington Post says that the Washington Post says..." doesn't seem to be worth much.

"Black Lives Matter" was created in 2012 before the protests and is independent of Brown and Garner cases.You'll never understand what they are trying to tell you if you can't realize that.

You're a paranoid loony, you know that? Yeah, that's actually pretty flaky.

Of course it's "possible" to make a judgement without a trial. It always is. Police states do it all the time.The question is whether it's a good judgement. Without a standardized system of determining what is "good evidence", there's no justice.

don't know how the grand jury system got started but from what everyone is saying it can't be the most reliable method for dealing with this sort of thing. I would think some kind of system is needed along its lines, though, something that can determine if the evidence calls for a trial or not, because trials are cumbersome and expensive, but a method that is more trustworthy, whatever that might involve.That said, I found this CNN story, which details some of the UNreliable witness testimony including that of Witness 40. I thought it interesting that after all that, CNN's own legal analyst concluded from the grand jury records that they had most likely come to the right conclusion in spite of it all, and that their judgment was correct that a trial WOULD exonerate Darren Wilson. So the upshot in his opinion was supportive of the grand jury. This even from liberal CNN.But everything I've said along those lines all along only gets objections, and this probably will too. The grand jury couldn't possibly have come to the right conclusion because everybody here just KNOWS they lied, because the police are always at fault when it's a white cop on a black criminal. We know this in advance because Political Correctness tells us so, we don't need evidence.There might be some cause for burning things down if what is believed were the truth, but it's not and burning things down is just criminal stupidity in defense of lies.

The Fifth Amendment?

The grand jury system started in England close to a thousand years ago. Check the history on Wiki.There are two kinds in the US, the criminal grand juries and the civil grand juries. Ferguson employed a criminal grand jury.Some states have a fairly powerful civil grand jury system, with California being the most powerful. They do not handle criminal matters but a panel of citizens is empowered to look into any matters dealing with government agencies, elected officials, or special districts within their respective counties.