A black "thug" is the narrative from the right.
First of all camera footage makes him out to be a thug:
In America, you are innocent until proven guilty. A fair trial is not being executed when your hands are up.
Secondly, witness accounts do not lend that statement any credence:
Report Several Black Witnesses Largely Back Up Officer s Account Of Michael Brown Shooting
Was the Grand Jury a sham? Do ANY of you folks on the right even ask those type of questions?
Crickets because the jury ruled unanimously not to indict, including the three black jurors. No it wasn't a sham, and yes it is you who can't wrap your head around the fact the law doesn't work one way.
AGAIN...
Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke
And by cutting out the part you either don't understand or just ignorantly disregard, it shows that your tiny little brain has never had a thought that government could be wrong...
The Grand Jury was a sham...
What part of this don't you understand?
"neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."
Justice Antonin Scalia, 1992
That would be this part:
"Prosecutors typically subpoena witnesses to appear before a grand jury because either:
· a prosecutor believes that a witness has information about a crime committed by a third party, and wants to elicit that information to secure an indictment against the third party, or
· a prosecutor regards a witness as a target (a person suspected of crime) and wants to develop evidence against the witness.
People called before a grand jury as witnesses do not have to be warned that they are or may become targets. Miranda-type warnings are not required, and, unless they are specifically given immunity (that is, promised that they won't be charged based on their testimony), any testimony witnesses provide to a grand jury may be used against them in a later prosecution."