on michael brown, once again the media has chosen a lousy case to focus on to make its point.
if racism is prevalent in the police/legal system, why not find a case in which the evidence is unanswerable?
the media seems determined to impose a narrative that requires a fair onlooker to ignore what seems obvious. the officer seems to have been defending himself against a physically aggressive bully who had just robbed a store. having shoved aside the shopkeeper on video, said bully assaulted the policeman in his car. a number of witnesses concur that the bully then charged the policeman outside the car when he told him to surrender. brown is not a sympathetic victim.
why should wilson not do his job to keep the peace and also defend himself using the instruments at his disposal when under assault for a second time?
why not accept the conclusion of the grand jurors? they heard the evidence and decided there is no case to answer. i accept it in spite of having misgivings in advance.
there's an issue of how society operates and the way the police force is perceived in some communities. but that is different to the issues in this case. wilson isn't responsible for poverty in the inner city. or the fact that officers are armed with deadly weapons and trained to use them in certain circumstances. he was an officer doing his job the way he was taught to do it while under threat.
if folks like wilson didn't exist we would regret it as a society. you can't have a rule of law without folks defending the edge of it.
| 
