Hacker group anonymous claims the shooter of Michael Brown will not be charged

SMTA said:

Based on reality, not my opinion.

Click to expand...

Wrong. What you said ignored the larger reality and was racist.

SMTA said:

No rooting will be required - they will riot, loot, break numerous laws, and cry foul when the police come - all by themselves.

Surely some looted high end video and audio equipment will help them with their sorrow.

Happens every time.

Click to expand...

Uh, no, it doesn't happen "every time."

rhinefire said:

How do you charge an innocent cop of doing his duty and exercising his right to defend himself? If the rioters again take to the streets I hope all cops have cameras on them so this time there won't be any phony charges of murder.

Click to expand...

They threaten the news crews, until they leave.. The rioters themselves then become the reporters through blog posters who can sterilize what is occurring.. At least that has been what was occurring in Ferguson for a bit.

jmotivator said:

No, you didn't actually have enough information to make such a call. Making unsubstantiated claims is not helpful

Click to expand...

Yes I did have enough information. I still do. That means it isn't unsubstantiated.
But yours false claim is.

Like I said.


And you still do not know what I did on my end to determine if there was an actual virus or not. (Which there wasn't.)
So can the bs.

jmotivator said:

You are only making yourself look more ignorant by claiming that it wasn't very likely because of the site.

Click to expand...

Your claim of ignorance only applies to yourself. While it is possible, it wasn't and isn't likely.

jmotivator said:

You don't know what you are talking about and so you give terrible advice to people in telling them to ignore their virus alerts.

Click to expand...

Wrong.
There was and is no virus at that site. It was a false positive "if" that is what he received. If anything he may have received a threat warning, but not a virus warning.
And as it was a false positive, getting a new scanner is excellent advice. Claiming otherwise is just silly, especially as one should be using more than one source to ascertain whether or not a virus exists. Jumping to conclusions because one source gave a positive result is what is wrong.

Now that November 10 has passed without the Grand Jury's verdict, it increasingly appears that Anonymous had been tweeting what was publicly available knowledge, perhaps to increase its profile. It likely had no unique knowledge or insight into the case.

As had previously been noted in this thread (#11), if the account in The Washington Post was accurate regarding the forensic evidence, there would likely be legitimate grounds for the police officer to have acted in self-defense (actual and/or perceived threat of imminent risk to the officer's life or of serious harm). Given the selective nature of the leaks and earlier conflicts in witness statements, some degree of uncertainty exists, but it probably is more likely than not that the police officer will not be indicted. Second, the newspaper story cited also mentioned that the Grand Jury's verdict was to be expected sometime "next month" (November), so again the expected timing wasn't really new. What about after November 4? November 1 and 2 fall on the weekend, so no Grand Jury decision is likely then. That leaves 28 days for November and 26 (93%) fall after November 4. Therefore, there always was a very high probability that the decision would be released after Election Day (Anonymous' first guess).

That Anonymous later speculated that the decision would occur on or around November 10 didn't really change things as the November 10 +/- 1 day period passed without a decision. In short, the tweets likely reflected prevailing expectations given the recently leaked evidence and the probability regarding the timing of the Grand Jury's decision.

Indeed, if one wanted to speculate, the period from November 12 through November 26 might offer the highest probability of the verdict's release. That period would fall between Veteran's Day and Thanksgiving Day. The work week of November 17-21 might even offer a somewhat higher probability of the decision's release, as it falls between the two holiday weeks. Again, it needs to be emphasized that this is speculative based on an underlying assumption that the decision would fall between November's holidays with the idea of limiting the fallout from such a decision on the holiday-related events and people involved. This speculation also assumes that the Grand Jury will have completed its work during that timeframe, something that is not wholly certain. There is some probability that the decision might slip into December, but it's probably a low one.

In the end, while it can be tempting to heed the claims of groups claiming special insight into a matter, unless one has reliable evidence of that unique insight, one should be cautious about embracing such claims. That the Anonymous tweets didn't really offer anything dramatically different from what was public knowledge strongly suggested that one take the group's claims with a healthy dose of skepticism.

donsutherland1 said:

In the end, while it can be tempting to heed the claims of groups claiming special insight into a matter, unless one has reliable evidence of that unique insight, one should be cautious about embracing such claims. That the Anonymous tweets didn't really offer anything dramatically different from what was public knowledge strongly suggested that one take the group's claims with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Click to expand...

Let me add some more hilarity to this.

All credit goes to sundance @ Conservative Treehouse.