Hispanic executioner this time, interesting.

some of the Hispanics I've met along the border states are some of the most insulting, power swollen heads I've ever met. I am speaking from my personal experience crossing the border to Mexico, numerous times. It's as though they have this "I have mine, fuck you" attitude toward my wife when we crossed. My wife was Mexican, and we could almost always count on getting harassed by the Hispanic police.

One time they took her inside and had me wait outside for two hours while they grilled her about how we met, what she is getting from being with this gringo, etc, etc. then they came out and grilled me for an hour to see if our stories matched. I was so pissed...but compliant.

and more than a quarter, that would be more than 30, were unarmed. The article doesn't say how many were African American, but my guess is most.
And the cop goes home every time.

They follow directions and make a decision. ...they are not racists because there isn't enough to indict and those who say otherwise are idiots or racists themselves.

If you believe that, you are as naïve as a child.

for a non-existent gun during a confrontation with a police officer.

It's 21st century lynching. It's disgusting.

And the DA/Prosecutor punts an indictment decision over to a Grand Jury instead of bringing a case himself.

they don't think they can win. It spoils their record for one. They may have future political ambitions. And if there is not enough evidence to get a conviction, then the DA is wasting taxpayers money. The fact is, the law favors the cop. The suspect does not have to be ARMED/have a weapon in order for the police officer to use lethal force, IF the officer REASONABLY BELIEVED his life was in danger. He is not legally obligated to WAIT/SEE a weapon. Most times a police officer only has a matter of seconds to decide whether to use his weapon in response to the actions of the suspect. He sees the suspect reaching for something, what? The officer is not obligated to risk his life and hesitate using his weapon to verify there is a weapon. This is why cops are not indicted. This is what we need to understand about the law. No matter how we personally think this is wrong, the law gives the benefit of doubt to the cop and unless there is enough evidence to prove otherwise, DA and Grand Juries are not likely to indict a cop. This is why we see sometimes see disciplinary actions (or termination) by the police department against the offending officer, but see no criminal charges. We need to understand how the law works and why it gives good cops and bad cops the same legal avenue to avoid prosecution. We also need better accountability from the justice system. Check out the third link, what one citizen accomplished after a ten year fight.

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/13/5994305/michael-brown-case-investigation-legal-police-kill-force-murder

http://www.thenation.com/article/190937/why-its-impossible-indict-cop#

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/what-i-did-after-police-killed-my-son-110038.html#.VJsIQF4AA

Cop in Milw cleared earlier this week.

Cop claimed he shot so many times because the mentally ill man manifested 'superhuman strength' and his service revolver was as effective as a bb gun.

That sounded quite similar to statements made by Wilson.

NOT!

Another killer cop walks with no accountability.

Big Boi ?@BigBoi 2h2 hours ago

Officer Castro Walks http://huff.to/1AXUChH Unarmed #JordanBaker Dead for Wearing Hoodie While Black In Houston #edshow

?6

WHOW.

rolandsmartin ?@rolandsmartin 4h4 hours ago

Hmmm. @babygossamer 121 shootings in four years and all of them cleared but the jury isn't biased? #JordanBaker... http://fb.me/1UR0rFRSv




:large

I was going to post it, but you did it first.

Another "he reached into his waistband" However, no gun.

WTF are all these young, black men reaching for right before cops gun them down in cold blood? Amazing that each victim does exactly the same thing.

Fuck the entire system!

It's still open season on black people in America.

A district attorney asks (or does not ask) a grand jury to bring an indictment. If the grand jury brings an indictment, the case goes to trial.

The grand jury process only hears the DA's side, so it cannot clear or convict; it simply decides whether or not the DA has convinced the grand jury that there is enough evidence to warrant a trial at this time.

As I understand it, another grand jury could be convened at another time to try again to bring charges, so no one can be said to be "cleared" just because a particular DA failed (or didn't want) to convince a particular grand jury to bring charges at a particular time.

I don't know much about the case, but I suspect a better, less obviously biased, headline might have been "DA Refuses to Get Indictment in Police Killing".

Fuck!

1) He attacked me and I was in fear for my life (alternative; he "rushed" at me)

2) He was a super-human rampaging hulk

3) He tried to take my weapon (alternative; he reached for his waistband)

4) He was a scary looking guy wearing thug clothes

5) It happened in a high crime area, and I was defending the innocent folks

6) If only he had been more cooperative, this would never have happened

7) Look into his past. Surely he has smoked dope or shoplifted or jaywalked or something

8) He was looking suspicious and "out of place"

Zimmerman is today posting online lessons about how to respond after shooting an unarmed person in "self-defense".

9) Oops. Forgot one. "Look at the size of this guy. Come on."

using a throw down weapon when the assassinated someone. Now, the system is set up so that merely saying he reached for his waistband is good enough to justify the murder.