Quote:
Originally Posted by Peanut
Well, to be fair, he could still be a racist murderer who just shot him in the front.
|
But there would go the evidence of the eye witness reports saying otherwise. And the only reason people came to the conclusion in the first place.
Too often it seems like there's nothing that would convince anyone to change their side. Of course this goes for every side of every single argument (doesn't matter the evidence you present you're going to have a young-Earth creationist tell you the world is 5000 years old).
In Trayvon Martin's case there could have been video of Martin nursing a kitten back to health before being brutally attacked and shot by Zimmerman and people would still have said Zimmerman was innocent by the time the trial was over. Likewise, you could have had video of Martin coming at Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground and slamming his head into the concrete floor unprovoked and people would still call him guilty...and white.
I'm just curious at what point or what evidence in this case would be required for the people who are so sure that the cop was a racist and/or corrupt murderer to second guess their original assumptions. If it isn't that Michael Brown had just committed a violent crime and the eye witness is lying/misremember, what is it?
I like to believe I'm "neutral" but because I wasn't willing to condemn the officer without all the facts I have a feeling many people will see me on the officer's side. But if the coroner report shows that Michael Brown was shot in the back at a distance, I'll likely be hopping on the cop-is-a-murderer bandwagon. So what will it take all those people who came in here calling for his head to change their minds?