We'll see what happens when all the evidence comes out but I suspect that even if that evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Wilson was justified in using deadly force against Brown there will still be no acceptance of that evidence by a whole lot of people. To accept such evidence would mean that all the outrage and the protesting and the looting was based on a failed interpretation of their faith and that simply isn't something that a lot of people will be able to internalize.
Liberalismódividing up the EARNED wealth of honest, hard working and ingenious AMERICANS and giving it to the leeches who would rather waste their worthless lives living off the government teat.
Also note that I have never claimed what you think I have, and that is only one claim. So I will ask again, what lies am I trying to confirm? You made the claim, I am sure you can back it up. You would never lie about some one....
As far as Cliven Bundy is concerned, I don't think the two situations can be compared. I think that the feds were within their rights to remove his cattle. If they had ended up getting all shot and killed, depending on the circumstances I probably would have called that justice too.
"We need to ask some very tough questions of the senator from Illinois. It's not enough to be black, it's not enough to be articulate, it's not enough to be eloquent and a media darling. The only question will be how deaf an ear, or how blind an eye will people turn in order to turn a frog into a prince." -Eddie Huff
Yours and others hardheadedness about the information because you want it from specific sources that align with your political ideology is what bothers me.
But, in the grand scheme of things, What is the difference between specifically naming a type of fracture, and claiming "Serious" facial injury??