No. Logic would have it that there's a clear pattern of black/Hispanic folk receiving a poorer deal from the justice system than white folk, on average.
Logic would have it that prosecutors usually go after opportunities to seek indictments. This guy not only shied away from that, he went further. He went to the media with a lengthy diatribe about how witnesses (all of 'em?) in this case shouldn't be trusted. By doing that, as I said before, he has effectively stymied the chances of there being a federal or civil case being mounted. You think that kind of behavior falls within his normal responsibilities as a prosecutor? I mean, shouldn't he be collecting some of the defence attorney' fees for that performance?
Poisoning the well just a tad?
There is not one bit of fact in what you said, only belief bordering on propaganda. It's convenient for you to blame the prosecutor in that case for not seeking and indictment, but again, that's not factual. He took it to a grand jury (which was convened BEFORE the incident, lest you accuse them of stacking the deck), and THE GRAND JURY determined that there was not enough evidence.
You say there is a clear pattern of blacks/hispanics getting a raw deal from the justice system. Even if that's true, what does that have to do with this case? Even if you could prove that blacks get a raw deal from the justice system in Ferguson FIFTY percent of the time, that tells us NOTHING about whether Wilson's or Brown's accounts were correct. (since we're jumping into logical fallacies here).
But since we've already established that you have NO FACTS to go on, you've moved on to trying to state your case based on generalities. The use of 'on average' and 'usually' sort of hint at what you're getting at.
You're basically saying that when it comes to interactions between black folks and cops, there's a pattern of abuse that harms the blacks. Therefore, in this case, Dorian Johnson's account should be taken as truth over Officer Wilson's.
Even though that's a logical fallacy, I'll bite and play on your turf:
If we're going to use generalities to determine the likelihood of truth in this case, consider some of these:
In general, when a police officer and a felon have two different accounts, how often is it that the felon was telling the truth? Ok, I'm pretty sure it's greater than 0%, but not much greater.
How likely is it that a police office with no history of violence, who has never even drawn his weapon, all of a sudden becomes a racist and guns down an unarmed man?
Or, what are the odds of this: Here we have two men, the first is a fine, non-violent officer of the law. The second is a felon, under the influence, who has earlier committed a felony where he was clearly VERY aggressive towards another innocent human being half his size.
So you're telling me, that for some illogical reason, you believe that the heretofore non-violent officer suddenly became aggressive with Michael Brown, who, AT THE SAME TIME, gives up his aggressive ways and just becomes an innocent victim? How likely is that? MUCH MUCH MUCH less likely than it being one of those 'blacks getting a bad deal from the justice system' things you're talking about.
