This Ferguson rioting business.

There are two eyewitnesses to the shooting, apart from the guy who was shot and the guy who did the shooting.
The eyewitnesses statements disagree with each other.
One of the eyewitnesses was his friend, who had just helped him rob a shop a few minutes before.
The policeman says he was attacked and the guy was trying to get his gun, the guys friend says they didn't do anything and were basically being all cooperative.


My opinion is that he probably did attack the cop, but didn't deserve to get killed over it. I would love to say I was surprised when it turned out that he wasn't this squeaky clean respectable citizen he had been made out to be, but it didn't come as a shock in the slightest.

I'll read it later, but it still seems weird to me. Being a thief isn't a reason to execute someone.

Totally agree. However, attacking an officer, trying to take his gun, and charging at him while he has his gun pointed at you. It's a reasonable expectation that he is likely to shoot.

As much as i'm a liberal hand wringing privacy no-cctv rimjobber, I firmly believe that all police officers should wear a camera and record all interactions. It will give protection to both them and the public from them...

"Officer Darren Wilson's story is unbelievable. Literally."

Why is that story so unbelievable? By committing the robbery in the first place, Brown has already proven himself to be a thug so why is it so unbelievable that he'd get mouthy with a police officer?

I didn't realise being a thug meant you were allowed to be summarily executed in broad daylight.

At this point it's an irrelevance. White police officer shoots black civilian and the powers that be decide that there shouldn't be a trial to find out whether it was lawful or not.

If the perp had been white or the officer had been black? Quite likely a different story.

I'm assuming by powers that be you mean a jury of 12 peers?

What are you talking about? There won't be an indictment, so no trial. So no jury.

I did wonder why you were talking a load of nonsense earlier - you don't even have the most basic of facts correct.

A grand jury decided there would be no indictment.

Of course, a grand jury only has prosecution, no defense. The running joke is that a grand jury always indicts, that they'll indict a ham sandwich. So you have to wonder just how shambolic the prosecution's efforts were that they failed to get one.

What are you talking about? There won't be an indictment, so no trial. So no jury.

I did wonder why you were talking a load of nonsense earlier - you don't even have the most basic of facts correct.

The town always mess it up.

There was a grand jury. 9 of them were white and I'm not sure how many black. Possibly none. They needed a 9/12 majority to indict, so all it needed was 4 white people who like the police.

Maybe I have too much faith in people, but I'd like to believe that the 12 people involved realised the scrutiny the result would be under, and made sure they made the choice based on something more than race.

Or just seen the general black/white divide in Ferguson and seen how the support for each person in the case is split?

This strikes me as very plausible:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2 ... ouldnt-win

Seems a bit more likely than that it was just because they are all racists.

They are going to release all the evidence to the public, as it was given to the jury apparently. So we'll all be able to put ourselves in their position and make our own mind up if we want to

Ironic.

That's not irony, you berk. That's just me being wrong.

That's not irony, you berk. That's just me being wrong.

Of course it is. You call me out over something, and the very argument you use against me, is the failing you have.

That's hypocrisy, isn't it?

If it was a generic failing, then yes. A specific factual error being used against someone, when it turns out that error is exactly their own error. That's ironic.

You need to look up the definition of irony.

Still, you believing that they would come to a fair decision not based on race is fairly naive and a bit laughable. Sorry.

No it's not! Look it up.

Anyway, thanks for distracting from my idiocy with this semantic argument. At least I know I'm right this time.

That's dramatic irony, Dave.

So, ironic then.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You do realise we're not in a play?

Ironically, most people who say that most people use it incorrectly, don't know how to use it themselves either.