Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Seany, Nov 25, 2014.
I don't do requests!
This is interesting, if true: http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/27/72 ... ry-mistake
The grand jury was given a copy of a statute that was ruled unconstitutional in 1985 to decide whether the shooting of Michael Brown was legal. The jury was eventually given a copy of the proper statute - very close to the end of the process - but they weren't told what the differences between the two statues were. (Largely to do with whether it's OK for a cop to shoot someone who is running away, as far as I can make out.) And when asked whether Federal law took precedence over Missouri state law, the assistant District Attorney, rather than just saying "Yes", completely dodged the question.
Again, if true, this looks like incompetence at best. And it might even look (to those who are inclined to think that way) that something more sinister is going on.
The video is not the easiest watch. The bloke presenting it is pretty irritating and spends most of the first half repeating himself, but some questions remain. Such as, if the process was flawed, should the decision be reviewed? Why was the process flawed (if indeed it was)? If everything's meant to be so transparent and clear-cut, why does it look like a ****-up, or worse?
There's also a chart here that compares some key questions witnesses answered, and how those answers differed: http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/26/72 ... grand-jury
I'm not entirely I can make any sense out of all this but on balance it all looks a bit dodgy to me, cynical sod that I am.
Also, I had the Miami Vice theme tune in my head for a whole day after reading this phrase.
Separate names with a comma.