WHAT GRAND JURY HAD NO REASONABLE DOUBT ABOUT A COP KILLING AN UNARMED KID?
After 10 shots Darren Wilson, the cop who killed Michael Brown, was no longer afraid for his life! So his testimony was compelling to the Grand Jury – perhaps as compelling as the murderer Zimmerman who was also so afraid for his life he stalked Trayvon Martin and shot him dead.
The media is abuzz with the importance of non-violent protest, but not about how the St. Louis prosecutor, Robert McCulloch, apparently represented the killer and not the victim. From McCulloch’s ludicrous 9 pm press conference, it was self-evident he was only making excuses for the comatose Grand Jury that should have merely decide to indict not try. Indictment means to then have a trial to determine guilt, and a Grand Jury is supposed to determine reasonable doubt. McCulloch’s past that is his prologue clearly reveals a man not on the side of reasonable doubt whenever a complexion different from his own has been involved. And Governor Nixon was far more concerned with how Ferguson would respond to the outrageous determination than replacing the prosecutor and changing the venue.
So Nixon enabled the Grand Jury and McCulloch to reach a decision based on prejudice not on reason.
Why were there months of testimony when clearly there were so many shots fired and the last one, each coroner contended was a “kill shot.” Could Wilson’s temerity and concern for his life (which of course is an obvious lie as he knew Michael Brown was unarmed) been tempered after 5 shots struck Brown or even after 8 shots?
From decades of police prejudice and legal abuse in Ferguson and St. Louis County is it reasonable to expect the community to politely turn the other cheek. Yet our media is on A non-violence tack and not saying much about the ludicrous and egregious essence of a prosecutor and Grand Jury gone terribly awry.
After most killing the killer is immediately taken into custody and charged with murder, but no when it is a cop or when thanks to ALEC there are bogus laws which allow murder whenever someone contends they were “afraid for their life.” Is black fear the reason or is it just plain racism?
The truth demands that the one denying it must absolutely negate it – to paraphrase Plato. The truth is that a Grand Jury is charge with the responsibility to ascertain reasonable doubt. And in Ferguson it seems it is reasonable to not doubt – and not absolutely explain why there is no reasonable doubt.
It is reasonable to depend on the account of the killer in Ferguson as it was in the case of Trayvon Martin and so many other people of color who have been murdered for so many decades and centuries.
The press should concentrate on the substance of what happened; all the shots that were fired after Michael Brown was no longer near the police car. The Press is supposed to objectively create informed public opinion not be a shill for the Ferguson Police or the Ferguson Grand Jury. To be objective one must conclude there is a preponderance of reasonable doubt as well as a preponderance of racism. AND IN THIS CASE: IT IS NOT REASONABLE TO NOT DOUBT.