The lefts racial outrage selection process

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Did you read witness 10's account? Brown ran to the corner with Wilson giving chase.

Also, Wilson said he originally ran 20 to 30 feet, meaning he then ran again.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

[Rage Against the McKee]

There isn't nearly enough evidence to convict Wilson of anything. He would be going to trial if the prosecutor wanted him to, though.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

There isn't nearly enough evidence to convict Wilson of anything. He would be going to trial if the prosecutor wanted him to, though.

You don't go to trial to satisfy political correctness.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I'm noticeing that not all white cop shoots unarmed black man stories are treated the same by rev. Al, Mr. Crump, the media, and pro-protesters.  Why does a video of a cop gunning down a innocent unarmed black yout draw nothing, and a very murky shooting like Ferguson bring a firestorm?  Its almost like the left isn't interested in the fact that a black kid gets killed if there will be overwhelming consensus that the cop was wrong in his actions,  the left only seems to care in cases where there is dissagreement over whether or not the cop was in the wrong.  It leads me to think that their agenda is far more important to them than calling out bad actors.  They apparrently would rather protest on behalf of someone in or possibly in the wrong knowing that a divisive argument will ensue than fight for real justice.  Its like the left would rather live in the Divided States of America.

Simple. At our meeting we decided that we didn't want our leaders in cold ass Cleveland so we'll let this weekly killing slide, we prefer warm weather.

Hey quick question for you, did the left also tell Fox News to cover the Mike Brown shooting when the other msm outlets covered it?

Are you sarcasticly saying that Fox broke this story, or that they covered it too after the story went national?

Not suggesting either, you intimated that the "left" blew up the Mike Brown story because of some anti-cop agenda. I'm asking you if Fox news is either
1. the left media
2. has an anti-cop agenda
3. can only report on things that the lib media reports on and does not have the ability to determine on their own what is newsworthy

I ask because I watch Fox News and the day I learned about the Mike Brown shooting and protests I watched Fox News cover the story, so if the liberal media was the reason why this story got big Fox's role can only be explained by one of the three things I listed above.

I was not saying the left media has an anti-cop agenda.  The story I read the day after talked about Browns buddies account of what happened,  the Browns families outrage over the false account, and a flowery rundown of how gentle Big Mike was.  Because this is what people heard and believed there were riots.  This reporting wasn't true, was irresponsible, and the reporter should be punished and forced to be financially responsible for inciting a riot.

1. Were his parents supposed to not believe the eye witnesses? FWIW Dorian Johnson hasn't changed his story so "false account," even after the evidence and grand jury testimony has been released, is strong. There isn't anything Dorian Johnson said that would have made Mike Brown armed, or more importantly, less dead and less laying in the street dead for 4 hours.
2. His teachers called him a gentile giant, there has been no evidence of anything that happened before that day to indicate that anyone has any reason to think otherwise.
3. The initial anger with the people in Ferguson had literally nothing to do with what Dorian Johnson said or what anyone wrote. It has been widely reported that there is a history of issues with the Ferguson Police Department and the citizens of Ferguson.
3. The Ferguson Police Department and St. Louis County Police Department are much more responsible for the property damage in August than any journalist.

Horseshit on all counts
Johnsons testimony doesn't square with the physical evidence, yet was the catalyst for everything else.

Officer Wilson's testimony doesn't square with the evidence but that won't even go to trial

I'm super curious since it's the first time I've heard this. What have you got?

here's just one example:

He estimates that Brown ran 20-30 feet away from the car and then charged another 10 feet back towards Wilson. But we know Brown died 150 feet away from the car.

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side


this is an interesting read:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

How is that conflicting?

[Rage Against the McKee]

There isn't nearly enough evidence to convict Wilson of anything. He would be going to trial if the prosecutor wanted him to, though.

You don't go to trial to satisfy political correctness.

You shouldn't go to the grand jury to satisfy political correctness. Once you are at the grand jury, the prosecution should do their job and try to get to a trial.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

There isn't nearly enough evidence to convict Wilson of anything. He would be going to trial if the prosecutor wanted him to, though.

You don't go to trial to satisfy political correctness.

You shouldn't go to the grand jury to satisfy political correctness. Once you are at the grand jury, the prosecution should do their job and try to get to a trial.

Is there some evidence they left out that would change the outcome?

[Rage Against the McKee]

There isn't nearly enough evidence to convict Wilson of anything. He would be going to trial if the prosecutor wanted him to, though.

You don't go to trial to satisfy political correctness.

You shouldn't go to the grand jury to satisfy political correctness. Once you are at the grand jury, the prosecution should do their job and try to get to a trial.

Is there some evidence they left out that would change the outcome?

There is some evidence and testimony they included that would have changed the outcome had they left it out.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

There isn't nearly enough evidence to convict Wilson of anything. He would be going to trial if the prosecutor wanted him to, though.

You don't go to trial to satisfy political correctness.

You shouldn't go to the grand jury to satisfy political correctness. Once you are at the grand jury, the prosecution should do their job and try to get to a trial.

Is there some evidence they left out that would change the outcome?

There is some evidence and testimony they included that would have changed the outcome had they left it out.

Yeah, probably would have been better if they didn't let them see all of the evidence. Would have been an epic riot when they lost the trial.

[Rage Against the McKee]

There isn't nearly enough evidence to convict Wilson of anything. He would be going to trial if the prosecutor wanted him to, though.

You don't go to trial to satisfy political correctness.

You shouldn't go to the grand jury to satisfy political correctness. Once you are at the grand jury, the prosecution should do their job and try to get to a trial.

Is there some evidence they left out that would change the outcome?

There is some evidence and testimony they included that would have changed the outcome had they left it out.

Yeah, probably would have been better if they didn't let them see all of the evidence. Would have been an epic riot when they lost the trial.

If you get falsely accused of a crime and see a grand jury, you can rest assured that no evidence that raises doubt of your guilt is going to be presented. Why should cops get special treatment?