That verdict in Ferguson -2

Reading the account of that officer it sounds as if he was close to describing to us how the bullets were bouncing off the guy being shot.

Anyway,  to tell me that someone, let alone a police officer,  capable of moving, with a gun , additional bullets in his belt, pepper spray and a baton couldn't stop unarmed person coming toward him in straight line during daylight except by fatal shots doesn't generate even a level of suspicion to proceed to a trial seems to be a joke.

That is the question that should be answered regardless of whether the guy being shot was a good guy or someone who had just robbed a bank before that encounter. 

You are the one with the gun and all these other capabilities and you want me to counter all that beyond the level of sufficient doubt to go to a trial because of things like the fierce or demonic look or behavior and assume some super powers because of that?

Six shots were fired . Why they were not fired at the legs? And more could have been also fired. How much more can one take while continue to walk toward a moving target? Even if he really reaches his target after all that, how much power is still left in him to cause a real danger?  

In addition to all that, given what the officer experienced at the initial struggle while he was inside his car, shouldn't he have a better estimate of how he will be affected and the danger that could follow from chasing the guy and as a result be seen with more responsibility to make better choices in  that final encounter?His duty is to uphold the law and letting the guy go to be caught later is much more closer to that than killing him if there is another alternative. After all it is not like the guy was wanted for murder or even robbing a bank.

Again, remember, that all this is not required to prove guilt but, at this stage, simply just to indicate that there is sufficient cause to conduct a trial.  You have got to be kidding me if you say it doesn't.

 

That verdict in Ferguson

While this is not the same story as that of the young man in Florida who was harassed then shot dead by someone with no authority over him, unless I am missing something here, I still don't see how the verdict of the grand jury make any sense here. You got an unarmed person walking toward you in straight line during the middle of the day and you are a trained police officer with your gun and without having your back to the wall or anything like that preventing you from continuing to move back temporarily, yet you are still unable to stop him except by fatal shot to the head?  How is that, not only convincing, but apparently so to the level of seeing that no trial is needed? What happened to shooting at the legs? He is a person not a tank. In addition, you have your pepper spray and baton in case he gets closer. 

I had no intention to write about this because I was under the impression that the shooting happened during the close struggle and just knew otherwise a while ago.

Again, unless I am missing some important detail here, I see that the verdict of the grand jury here is very unconvincing . 

On the issue of the two girls I spoke about earlier I want to point out that I shouldn't need to express my view regarding how highly parents should be regarded and treated. But when you allow what happened there then you are breaking the unbreakable. However, even with that, I was not speaking about understanding the actions of the mothers in a way that sufficiently reflects on the mothers to make the daughters respond back. Instead, my intention was for those daughters to sufficiently count for their own existence. Leaving the question of sufficiently seeing the guilt and guilty here is a way for not sufficiently accounting for what happened and it is hard to see how could that mean other than the failure to sufficiently acknowledge their own existence.