Wow. That's great. There's a lot to like about it, but I think my favourite bit is where he suggests the Thunderf00t video has some actual value. I guess it will get him some clicks though so good on him :)

Truth hurts, eh?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/

Right, but we'll never know because there won't be a trial. The prosecutor didn't do his job. Wilson claims to have been battered, but there wasn't even a bruise. If he was a legally armed civilian this case would have gone before a jury.

1. The job of the grand jury is to determine whether there is sufficient cause or evidence to bring criminal charges.
2. The physical evidence supports the officer's account and directly contradicts witness testimony of wrongdoing.
3. There are photos and medical records of the bruising.

Raspberry pi supposedly a charity that makes a mini computer to help teach people about computers have recently been criticised again for their comments and now for using the twitter blocklist.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3WEUMrCcAA0ODB.png
https://archive.today/pBBHQ
Who is the wife of the raspberry pi trading company CEO.

I've seen the photo evidence.....a small red patch, not even any swelling. So it's hardly clear that that the Wilson's story is supported by the evidence.

I'll post the link again. Consider reading it this time:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/

The bruising is not the only evidence. But for reference, see the attached photo for a good look at it.

Also, I'm curious: What makes you think that your opinion is somehow more informed than that of the grand jury that reviewed all available evidence and testimony?

David Braben: Co-founder oO

I read it, I just don't find it conclusive. The purpose of a grand jury hearing is to determine if there is a possibility of a crime, not render a final verdict. Wilson could have lied.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/seemingly-unorthodox-police-procedures-emerge-in-grand-jury-documents/2014/11/25/48152574-74e0-11e4-bd1b-03009bd3e984_story.html

'Prosecutors, who led the inquiry, regularly grilled witnesses, testing their memories and going to great lengths to discredit some.

But in questioning Wilson, prosecutors were far more gentle and at times seemed to be guiding his answers.'

I suppose he could have used his service weapon, which he had never before discharged in the line of duty, to gun down a black man on the street without just cause, sure. But without any reliable testimony or compelling evidence, on what basis would you make that assertion? Because he's white, he must be a racist that hates blacks?

Establishing the credibility of witnesses is a crucial part of responsible prosecution. Considering that the physical evidence revealed many of the supposed witnesses were outright lying, this "grilling" of witnesses seems entirely appropriate and necessary.

The mistake that you, and some others, make is incorrectly assuming that because some of the physical evidence could be interpreted in such a way that it supports the officer's story, it contradicts the testimony from all of the other witnesses. There were multiple reports that interpreted the evidence differently. It's entirely your perogative to ignore those other reports if that is what you want to do. The article you have linked, however, expressly states that the author is dealing with only a small part of the evidence.

That some evidence suggested the officer acted unlawfully and other evidence suggested the officer acted lawfully is the very reason he should have been charged and a proper trial conducted.

There is a big difference between saying the physical evidence supports the officer's story and the truth, which is that some of the physical evidence when viewed in a certain light, supports his story.

What "testimony from all of the other witnesses" are you referring to? Those claiming that Browne was shot in the back or while on the ground *are* directly contradicted by the physical evidence. And you do realize that several witnesses testified that Michael Brown charged Officer Wilson? This is not "Wilson vs. Everyone Else".

And the grand jury that reviewed all available evidence and testimony? What makes you think that your opinion is somehow more informed than theirs?

About "reports that interpreted the evidence differently"... The autopsy commissioned by the Brown family agreed with the official autopsy. And regarding interpretation of the evidence, do feel free to link to *expert* opinions that dispute the conclusions of the medical examiner or other expert witnesses who testified before the grand jury.

What evidence that "suggested the officer acted unlawfully" would that be? And did the grand jury somehow not have access to that evidence?

Also:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/legal-scholars-praise-ferguson-grand-jury-fairness/

Guys, we folks will never know what happenend and the "justice" I saw it with the guy sellling bootleg cigarettes, strangled by a cop unarmed. I saw it, a guy with a toy gun in a super market shot on sight, I saw it with a 12 year old shot down in a park, a guy entering a staircase unarmed with his girlfriend, an old man who would not let the cops in, shot. THIS is just wrong.

I agree 100%. I have been very critical of the tactics of police, especially the ones here in the USA. I've been loud and vocal about things like the Patriot Act and the NSA wiretapping. In terms of freedom the whole world is definitely heading in the wrong direction.

However, this Ferguson case is a clear example of how people have become tired of oppression and are lashing out against the system, even though in this case no one seems to care about actual evidence. The case saw not 1 but 3 autopsies done on Mike Brown, one of them even being an examiner hired by the Brown family. The Grand Jury was given access to every single piece of forensic and eye witness evidence. And no indictment. Seems pretty clear to me. Mike Brown did not deserve to be judged just because of his skin color, but by that same reason Darren Wilson did not deserve to be judged just because he was a police officer. That door swings both ways.

Yet people protest and riot anyway. I think the disturbances of each side are only causing even more entrenchment and stubbornness. Combine all that frustration and anger with crowds, guns, bad economy, and election seasons and you can see how the whole thing starts to look like a powder keg just waiting for a match. Everyone is yelling, very few are listening. Unfortunate.