- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Why do you have to go to the extreme? No one is talking about OJ. I merely asked you why, if what you say is true did the GJ fail to indict? And could it be that you are not privy to all the evidence they saw? Or, is it just that the black man was shot by cops, and that's all you need in your mind to indict them on your own?
The only thing the GJ decision demonstrates is that a certain group of people did not believe there was enough evidence to charge to the officer. It doesn't reveal anything about the facts (added on edit) Their only job is to decide if there's enough evidence to charge the officer with a criminal offense. Their job is not deciding if it was good police work.
The facts are that a man who did not do anything criminal or that presented an imminent danger to anyone was shot while dropping his weapon as ordered.
And arguing that they had, or might have had, more evidence is just speculation. I will base my opinions on the evidence that is available.
Last edited: