I said way back when there were only three, or maybe four, witnesses that Johnson's account could be disregarded and there's still enough probable cause to go to trial. I don't have to evaluate his individual credibility because I'm not on the jury and never will be. The Prosecutor certainly has to consider his credibility as to whether or not he'd ever call him as a witness at trial, but being as the pertinent issues of the kill shot(s) have all six (maybe seven) witnesses saying basically the same thing, I can't imagine any prosecutor leaving his testimony out of the mix, thus disallowing the jury to do their duty and their job by testing his credibility against other witness testimony, the forensics, and whatever Wilson's defense team can provide of his side of the story without putting him on the stand. Or if they put Wilson on the stand, then so much the better. Let the jury decide who's credible and who ain't. That's how it's supposed to work once the threshold of probable cause to bring a charge has been crossed.
Bottom line, Johnson's account(s) can only be tested and scrutinized for credibility by a jury, and that testing and scrutiny can only take place if there's a trial, and that trial can only take place if the Prosecutor or the Grand Jury grow a pair and recognize the relative freakin' mountain of evidence to establish probable cause to bring a charge (or more).
As has been the case from day one, this is about was it a justifiable/not-justifiable shoot for me. I don't get lost in issues or personality traits of people of whom I know nothing but a small sliver that the same media that you decry the non-objectivity of has fed you and everybody else. I ask is there probable cause to bring a charge, not if I can determine the credibility of each and every witness, or potential witness, from several hundred miles away. I ask if Wilson had justification for the final volley of shots, not whether he was white and the person he shot was black. I don't give one flyin' fvck who's employed and who ain't, why they were there on-scene or what they were doing while there. All I care about is was the killing justified and are the witnesses who all were there and say it wasn't can convince a jury to a reasonable doubt that they're telling the truth.
As far as your last question, can Wilson get a fair trial? Did the cops who beat Rodney King get a fair trial? What's the definition of "fair?" Only if he gets off? Only if he's convicted? Look, biased media coverage or not, the system is what it is. I can't do anything but look for justice within that system. This is one of those cases that not everybody is ever going to agree with the outcome of a trial. I can't do anything about that though. Give me a trial to either support the conduct of, or to criticize, but damn man, don't just bail on the process because there's been publicity about the case! That's just a ridiculous thought that I won't waste another second of thought to.
"Cherry picked" my rosy red ass, whodat. The last couple of paragraphs were just more crap about stuff I haven't been talking about. If you want to talk about 'em, that's fine, just don't hit "Reply With Quote" on one of my posts and then ask me a bunch of unrelated-to-anything-I-said questions. And then accuse me of "cherry picking" when I answer all but two.
Blues
