if the photos are out there - photos which will show us a face that was so damaged there was reasonable fear that the next punch to it could have been fatal, as the cop attested, then show it to us on this debate site and convince us that it is you who is correct instead of me
you insist there are other available photos to offer. so, offer them
i posted the photo of the cop on the evening of the event, soon after he insisted that the next blow to his face could have been fatal. to ask the viewer to question how legitimate that cop's testimony was based on the photo
so, again, share with us your photo which will support your position
then let's ask a different question
the grand jury is intended to make a determination of probable cause. to assess whether there was enough reason to proceed with a case at trial, for a jury to make a decision
based on what i have seen, there was an abundance of evidence to cause a reasonable person to conclude that there was probable cause for a trial. not to make a determination of guilt or acquittal, but enough to warrant a trial
which exactly why a trial was needed. others of us have an issue with that conclusion. the cop was seated in his SUV and backed up to confront the young men walking in the road for a second time. who was the party to actually initiate this physical conflict. it may have been brown. but let's see this at trial. what might be found is that it was the cop who assaulted brown and brown was defending himself from the cop's assault
from the video i watched, my recollection was that brown was headed out the door when he was approached by the store operator, and then shook him off. at a trial we would be better able to assess what that was about. did brown steal those cigars or was he leaving abruptly after being approached to determine if he was old enough to make that purchase. right now, i don't know
were there other witnesses who saw brown not charge but instead place his hands in a position of surrender. i believe there were. which alone would tell us there was probable cause to have a trial to learn the truth. something which will not come out without a trial
i can accept the truth. but it will require a trial for the truth to emerge. only a simpleton would believe a grand jury determines truth. it only evaluates probable cause for or against a trial going forward
again, how do you know which narrative is false? there has been no trial for all sides of the issue to emerge
