Just like economics, you try to concoct an argument no one is making.
There is a saying in prosecution lawyers "You can indict a ham sandwich". You are ignoring that from the start the is a separate and unequal standard for policing the police and policing the public. An none of the lawyers I have seen on tv, have said even with the way this went down, is normally the way it goes. Prosecutors are not paid to be defense lawyers. Even the infamous Marsha Clark of the OJ case, said no matter the intent of this prosecutor it should not have been conducted the way it went down.
Just like you argue with economic issues, you have a separate but equal or "more special" mentality in your thought process. You side with Wilson because you want to side with him. And again, this isn't even about one case, this is about you ignoring the bigger picture which leads to conditions long term.
I do not believe Wilson in this case, not because of just this case. I do not believe him because cops are trained to dominate from the start. I also do not believe him being afraid of Brown, otherwise why pull up that close in a seated position at a tactical disadvantage which no one disputes.
You do what most humans do. You cherry pick what you want to see and have the same selection bias and sample rate error. Nobody sane person should argue that cops should not be allowed to do their job. But just like you argue economics, you have a double standard and fail to see that. No civilian would have gotten away with what Wilson did, regardless if you think he had no ill intent. A civilian under similar circumstances at a minimum would have gone to trial.
There is a saying in prosecution lawyers "You can indict a ham sandwich". You are ignoring that from the start the is a separate and unequal standard for policing the police and policing the public. An none of the lawyers I have seen on tv, have said even with the way this went down, is normally the way it goes. Prosecutors are not paid to be defense lawyers. Even the infamous Marsha Clark of the OJ case, said no matter the intent of this prosecutor it should not have been conducted the way it went down.
Just like you argue with economic issues, you have a separate but equal or "more special" mentality in your thought process. You side with Wilson because you want to side with him. And again, this isn't even about one case, this is about you ignoring the bigger picture which leads to conditions long term.
I do not believe Wilson in this case, not because of just this case. I do not believe him because cops are trained to dominate from the start. I also do not believe him being afraid of Brown, otherwise why pull up that close in a seated position at a tactical disadvantage which no one disputes.
You do what most humans do. You cherry pick what you want to see and have the same selection bias and sample rate error. Nobody sane person should argue that cops should not be allowed to do their job. But just like you argue economics, you have a double standard and fail to see that. No civilian would have gotten away with what Wilson did, regardless if you think he had no ill intent. A civilian under similar circumstances at a minimum would have gone to trial.
