This again, only different. Kind of. Follow

He could so easily have done that to himself. Why would it be on that side of his face if.... eh, ***** it, I've lost interest.

I don't really care much, but I read his deposition since it was there. The best part is where he says Brown held one of his hands and "I felt like a 5 year old being held by Hulk Hogan". Then he recounts considering carefully all of his options before, as an absolute last resort, shooting Brown 12 times, including in the face. It's really comical. "Then I considered using my mace, but, sadly, his hands, which if you recall were both holding my hands and punching me were ALSO placed just exactly where they made mace completely ineffective!" Then he considers his flashlight, and his ASP baton, opening the door, etc. He also assumes that the next punch from Brown "could be fatal". Someone should really hire a 5 year old to read it aloud, I'd pay to see it.

I'd almost want to suggest that all officer sidearms be replaced with Tasers and that the guns be kept locked up in the cruisers for special cases when they're actually needed. But I'm sure there's plenty wrong with that solution.

There's nothing wrong with it, but the "then we'll be outgunned by the criminals!!!evelven!!" argument is so trite and easy that it's impossible to get past. Whatever our society makes legal for citizens to carry, the police have to have slightly more lethal weapons. Because tiny penises, I guess.

Last time tasers came up someone was complaining about how inhumane they were.

The problem with "less lethal" weapons is contempt about using them. Wait and listen to an angry guy yell at you for 20 minutes and try to talk him down, or **** it, tase him and move on becomes a difficult decision.

Yeah, that depo is ridiculous, and the hospital record showing a bruised cheek

Is it bruised? It looks like my cheek does if I'm reading a book leaning on my hand for 10 minutes.

You can clearly see the marks of four out of the five fingers used in a death punch. If the pinkie was angled ever more slightly then we'd have a cop killer on our hands.

The only excuse for a police officer to kill someone is that the person was a threat.

It was a mild take down. It should not have resulted in death. I'm not sure how much more clearly this can be stated.



Ok. Now apply the actual standard for involuntary manslaughter to the case in question. It doesn't work. You have to prove that the person knowingly to an action which a reasonable person would know created a significant probability of death. As I've tried to point out repeatedly, police do take downs like this regularly. Probably a hundred people had this done to them in the last 24 hours. Thousands nationwide a week. Hundreds of thousands nationwide every year. His death was a fluke, one in a million, event. No police officer would reasonably expect that the actions they took that day would result in death.

That's why the grand jury did not recommend charges be filed. Not because of some conspiracy against black people. Not because of some pro-cop bias. But because the facts simply don't add up to a criminal charge. Period.

Intentionally? Sure. Accidentally? It happens occasionally. Police are not perfect. But the rate at which they accidentally kill people is remarkably low given the number of violent physical encounters they have to deal with.

May I suggest that you reconsider that notion each time you post.

The actual evidence includes Brown's blood and gunshot residue inside the car in a manner consistent with him being shot while leaning into the driver's side window. How do you suppose that happened? You're zeroing in on the least significant and least reliable bits

I was responding to you reminding us that he was being punched. I agree that was insignificant and unreliable.

If Brown was punching him in the face, why does the hospital photo appear that the bruise is on the right side of his face? Shouldn't it be on the left?

There's so little fact left in the world, it needs to be conserved.

He didn't die because of the hold to his neck. If you can say "I can't breathe", then the hold isn't strong enough to actually prevent you from breathing.

There also was not enough time for someone to pass out from lack of oxygen. He was unconscious in about 15 seconds (less I think, but I haven't actually timed it). It was not the hold that caused this. I get that people see someone with an arm around his neck and journalists make sure to put the words "choke" or "choke hold" into every single story about it, but if you stop and actually think about the events you see on the video that just doesn't make any sense. There were other factors that must have been involved. Factors that the cops could not possibly have known about.




Yeah. Point being that you are almost certainly wrong and the grand jury is almost certainly right. They have examined far more of the evidence in the case then you have. They have been instructed in the law and how it applies to cases like this. And they decided that the events that occurred do not fit a crime sufficiently well to recommend that charges be filed. You have done what? Watched a brief video and listened to some news stories (which never hype things or play to emotions, right?). I'm sure that massively qualifies you to conclude that the grand jury got it wrong.