La Cucaracha by Lalo Alcaraz for December 09, 2014

And this is an example where a nominal Democrat (McCulloch) has absolutely done wrong by not only a murdered young man, but by the entire judicial process itself. Maybe the Democratic base should start talking about DINOs, similar to the other side talking about RINOs.

People need to remember that Michael Brown wasn’t the angel he let his parents believe. Yes, he was unarmed, and, yes, he didn’t need to be shot. But…and this is a very Big but…Officer Wilson was trying to protect himself as seen from the very obvious wounds on his face. Why is this fact always hidden away? I’m not saying that shooting Brown was the right thing to do , I’m just saying there are always two sides to one story. The Grand Jury, which had three African-Americans on it, ruled that Wilson didn’t have enough of a case, and thus found him without cause. Why isn’t the fact that three African-Americans were in on the Grand Jury’s decision, pointed out more prominently? I am simply making a point… ;)

because even if the 3 African Americans DID believe that they did have a case against Wilson it wouldn’t have matterred because they were outnumbered and technically their beliefs don’t matter if all the whites voted for Wilson. That’s why you don’t hear that angle more prominently.

My two cents, if you have 20 witnesses for example and 10 say one thing and 10 say another. Why did the DA only believe the 10 who supported his beliefs and ignored the rest? The simple fact that there were even many ppl who went against Officer Wilson’s account IS THE REASON TO GO TO TRIAL! I don’t understand why he was so against going to trial.

Why were there witnesses coming out of the woodwork on this shooting? When one black shoots another, nobody saw nuthin’; didn’t see a thing; mindin’ my own bidness; what gunshots? etc etc.

Why are we talking about Ferguson when we do have a case, New York, that we have definite video evidence on? You want to scream police abuse and grand jury failure, that is the case to talk about!

Maybe she should take the weapons training course that has pop-up thugs and moms with babies that swing out and you have to make a split second decision to shoot at them.

This is not a case where Wilson didn’t know who he was shooting at. So this comment is irrelevant.

As far as evidence, it’s there for the reading in the grand jury report, from which I drew what I posted. Maybe before going off half-cocked, you should do a little of your own reading. And I notice that once again you don’t see fit to counter evidence with evidence, but rather go on your little teapot attacks against people making the larger point.

Lalo, I salute you (mostly with one finger).

This really is what everything indie puts on these pages boils down to. Almost-pure anger, leavened with a bit of hate.

Plus, it has nothing to do with Lalo.

This has never stopped you in the least. And won’t stop you in the future, I wager. In fact, it didn’t stop you—your following comment and the post it comes from as Exhibit A:

I wasn’t aware that “Comments” needed visual aids.

When one poster refers to a photo, why not enter a photo into evidence. Why? Did it hurt your eyes? Are you overwhelmed by graphics that aren’t line drawings?

You are so “mean” to Indithink…

I am a bad, bad, bad, bad person. But you, too, are in the doghouse with ol’ indie. Why can’t you just agree with him? The world would be such a better place then!

“At the close of evidence, the prosecutor reads legal instructions and the law to jurors. The grand jury may then vote an indictment, also known as “true bill.” To vote an indictment you only need a quorum. For example in the Ferguson case, quorum would have been nine out of 12 grand jurors. Most grand juries are 12 to 23 people.”

(http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/6-your-questions-about-grand-juries-answered)

All the eye witness’ claiming misconduct on officer Wilson’s part either recanted or changed their testimony when placed under oath. There were dozens of people asked to testify and the Grand Jury heard from them, Officer Wilson and forensic evidence. The Grand Jury made their decision in a courtroom, away from all the hype and bluster from race hustlers. Would you want your case discussed on the street or in a calm, deliberative court setting?

Let’s see what Justice Scalia had to say about Grand Juries in 1992.It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. As a consequence, 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.

“Democrat In Name OnlyRepublican In Name Only”

This was a direct answer to a direct question by charlie rivers.

Remember, he is upset with me for not posting facts in my comments.

Except that Night-Gaunt does, in fact, often post facts pertinent to the day’s strips. Unlike a certain indie.