"Meredith Clark, an assistant professor at the Mayborn School of Journalism at the University of North Texas who is conducting research on the Black Lives Matter movement, told the Los Angeles Times the lack of outrage over Hammond’s death did not appear to be race-related. She said the lack of compelling video or a history of brutality complaints with the police department was more of a reason the story did not reach national levels."

I read that part very closely.
Your point?

So tweets by BLM were all they did.

All that was done by whom? As opposed to ... what ... else did you want them to do?

Bye the way, from the quantity and length of your posts, I assumed you WERE retired.....lot of time on your hands? And yes I DO have a lot of time on my hands as I am happily retired, thanks for asking?

9699 posts now, including this one.
First post was late 2005 or (less likely) early 2006.
Dividing by more days would provide a lower rate. So let's say January 1, 2006. 365*9 = 3285. 2 leap years in there. 3287 days. Since Jan. 1 of this year, add about 238 days, for a total. 3525 days. Divide this into the 9699, to obtain an average posting rate of a little more than 2.75 posts per day.

Of course, this ignores hidden posts (deserved or not) as well as an extended vacation.

It also assumes linearity, the same per day. Clearly, this is false. (Unless, of course, you think these are just facts for me to distort or ignore, lol ... .)

Similarly, I am sure your analysis of my posting rate and the lengths of the posts was equally insightful, such as subtracting the length of the quoted parts (to put things in context) to see how long the remainder (my contribution) was.

Even accounting for these things, the average posting rate would still be close to 2 or 3 posts, with some/many days of 0 and 1, some a little higher, some much higher. (Or do you dispute the non-linearity of my posting behavior and the works of Newton and Leibniz?)

But, sure, let's talk about these things, with only one minor point regarding my previous post in this thread.

Buy the way ... . ("Oh, well, whatever, nevermind.")

This contains a very useful little chart saying what each witness supports. You'll see that the witnesses for the most part support the notion that Micheal Brown had his hands up when the police shot him. Also note the vagueness of the question regarding whether Micheal Brown reached for Wilsons gun. 'Reach into or otherwise directly interacted with' can basically mean anything. Though you are right, most witnesses agree that he didn't kneel, which arguably the least important aspect of this story.

What we are apparently witnessing, in fact:

Is that the initial witnesses, according to the Forensics, were untruthful. Why The Left, as The Right in other matters, MUST continue a lie. Possibly shows a very disturbing inner problem.

Additionally: Those later truthful witnesses, who possibly for fear of their lives, would not come public with The Truth. Shows a very disturbing Thug/Bully and possibly worse small element, within Inner Cities.

Why were they afraid? Who in their neighborhoods, were they afraid of?

The cops?

Nope.

Does anyone on The Left care about this.

Nope.

How do you know the initial witnesses were liars and the later ones where speaking the truth? What evidence do you have to call those witnesses liars?

He wasn't shot in the back. As many initial and untruthful, perjuring themselves under oath in the Grand Jury, stated.

Actually according to the chart almost everyone said that Michael Brown was facing Darren Wilson when he got shot. So again, what lying witnesses?

Why were those, basically backing up the Officer's account (according to The Facts and Forensic Evidence) afraid to publicly speak the truth?

Clearly they weren't given that they all said that MB was facing DW. Its in the chart. Have you actually looked at the chart?

He wasn't shot in the back. As many initial and untruthful, perjuring themselves under oath in the Grand Jury, stated.

Actually according to the chart almost everyone said that Michael Brown was facing Darren Wilson when he got shot. So again, what lying witnesses?

Why were those, basically backing up the Officer's account (according to The Facts and Forensic Evidence) afraid to publicly speak the truth?

Clearly they weren't given that they all said that MB was facing DW. Its in the chart. Have you actually looked at the chart?

Michel, why are some witnesses left out or, if not left out, not numbered sequentially?

Wow. What I take away is that MB was running away when DW discharged the first shot. Then MB must have stopped to turn around and face him. Then DW shot at him a lot more times.

As to those missing witnesses, perhaps they weren't witnesses, just people interviewed to see if they might have been witnesses, or they only witnesses by sound and not sight. PBS doesn't say what criteria they used in selecting who was in the table.

OBW that table shows about how reliable witness testimony is. People are terrible at observation!

---

Michel, why are some witnesses left out or, if not left out, not numbered sequentially?

Sorry, I don't know, I didn't make that table ;)

Perhaps its what Gary said, the others are people who were asked but didn't turn out to be witnesses? Or perhaps they were witnesses of some other aspect of the investigation and not the shooting itself?

i got a post from change.org to sine a potision for background checks on gun
purchases sighting this,

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/us/wdbj7-virginia-journalists-shot-during-live-broadcast.html?_r=0

a fired black newscaster shoots two white newscasters live on air.
now am i supposed to think the black newscaster was racies, or the white newscasters were racist or the station was racist.
i see a tragedy were 2 white people were gunned down by a black man who also
tragically committed suicide and i do not see how a background check could have helped.
so i find the whole thing sad does that make me a racist?
please explain it to me because i do not understand!

---

Michel, why are some witnesses left out or, if not left out, not numbered sequentially?

Sorry, I don't know, I didn't make that table ;)

Perhaps its what Gary said, the others are people who were asked but didn't turn out to be witnesses? Or perhaps they were witnesses of some other aspect of the investigation and not the shooting itself?

Or, the witnesses found not credible were left out?
Or, the table maker selected his or her own way to skew the point made?

Or, the witnesses found not credible were left out?
Or, the table maker selected his or her own way to skew the point made?

Is PBS Newshour known for its political bias? And do you think that in a case this controversial, they would get away with showing a deliberately skewed table? Besides, if you wanted to skew a table, wouldn't you include more witnesses that support one side of the story?Aka, less witnesses that contradict what other witnesses said?

i got a post from change.org to sine a potision for background checks on gun
purchases sighting this,

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/us/wdbj7-virginia-journalists-shot-during-live-broadcast.html?_r=0

a fired black newscaster shoots two white newscasters live on air.
now am i supposed to think the black newscaster was racies, or the white newscasters were racist or the station was racist.
i see a tragedy were 2 white people were gunned down by a black man who also
tragically committed suicide and i do not see how a background check could have helped.
so i find the whole thing sad does that make me a racist?
please explain it to me because i do not understand!

He last employer ordered him to go to a head shrink or be fired. HIPPA won't let us know if he did. HIPPA also won't let us know if his shrink should have reported his sorry butt to the gun database.

As to him, heard an interview with a station director who fired his butt some years before for a station in Tallahassee. He was a very angry gay man. One has to wonder if he had as many issues as Chelsea Manning and needed the Caitlyn Jenner treatment?

---

Just the Human Condition.

No not at all. Simply sets that intersect.

---

Or, the witnesses found not credible were left out?
Or, the table maker selected his or her own way to skew the point made?

Is PBS Newshour known for its political bias? And do you think that in a case this controversial, they would get away with showing a deliberately skewed table? Besides, if you wanted to skew a table, wouldn't you include more witnesses that support one side of the story?Aka, less witnesses that contradict what other witnesses said?

PBS stands for Public Broadcasting Service. It gets money to run from the government and from people donating directly to them. It is often accused of a left-wing bias.

And, didn't we all agree that, according to the table, the majority said MB had his hands up?

PBS stands for Public Broadcasting Service. It gets money to run from the government and from people donating directly to them. It is often accused of a left-wing bias.

A left wing bias in America is still a right wing bias in the rest of the world. Its not that hard to have a left wing bias when the right wing actively denies proven scientific facts, denies well established scientific theories, has a completely unjustified persecution complex, denies the existence of things like institutional racism and sexism, etc. If you report the facts you can't help but have a left wing bias.

And, didn't we all agree that, according to the table, the majority said MB had his hands up?

Well yes, but maybe that was the truth?

Of course. Two thoughts.

#1 - Investigation 101: People recall, what they expected to see. Any rookie Police Investigator understands that.

#2 - We may (are?) dealing with a role reversal of 'Old South Justice' and testimony.

Of course, it couldn't just be that some white police officer gunned down an unarmed black man who was surrendering. That would be ridiculous, such things NEVER happen in the United States.

Again: Why would the Obama Justice Department and Holder, not press criminal charges, with all these witnesses?

Maybe because they didn't have a case. Having eyewitnesses is nice, but its far from enough to actually get a conviction. And is there more evidence? No. Why? Because the police neglected to do a proper crime scene investigation. Their CSI guy didn't even take pictures of the crime scene! Supposedly because the batteries of his camera were empty.

According to the police it was very clear what happened. A police officer was attacked and he shot his attacker. They did not bother to find any more evidence and they sure as hell didn't want evidence that might contradict that story.

Again: Why were the witnesses, whose testimony agreed with the Science. Afraid to go public.
Who were these truthful witnesses afraid of?

It's interesting about witnesses and testimonies.
Only a few weeks ago a man assualted a neighbour of mine.
I and an other neighbour managed to hold the prepator until the police came.
Then I was questioned by the police about the incident.
That was only 10 minutes after it happened and I realized immediately that I had problem to remember the course of the incident.

Same thing happened to Olof Palme's wife when he was shot in Stockholm.

Hey DEM/Lib, Socialist, Commie Lovers of Oppressed:

Why Did A Tanned One-Again-Kill A Copper?

This Time Ambushed from behind. You know, An Execution.

Come On Leftists, Let's Hear DEM Reasons Why.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/29/us/texas-sheriffs-deputy-shot-gas-station/index.html

...

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Inside the mind ...
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/jewish-center-shootings/frazier-glenn-miller-jr-trial-white-supremacist-kansas-shootings-takes-n418206

OLATHE, Kan. — A white supremacist charged with killing three people at Jewish sites in suburban Kansas City spent more than two hours Friday telling jurors how he planned the attacks and is sorry he didn't kill more people.

---

Again:

Don't attempt to reason with a (I don't care about Science, nor Bullet Wound Trajectory) Religious and/or Secular Ideological 'Believers'.

You guys/gals can continue to spew your Non-Scientific, if we continue to shout lies, the 'stupid people' will believe us, nonsense.

Again: Why were the witnesses, whose testimony agreed with the Science. Afraid to go public.

Who were these truthful witnesses afraid of?

The Left's inability to even consider this: Shows who the Real racists are.

What witnesses are disagreeing with autopsy report? And how does the autopsy report dispute the rest of the story? Your continued hammering about how supposedly witnesses were bullied into silence is not exactly relevant.

Two weeks ago put someone up a cross outside an accommodation in Malung Sweden and lit it like some from KKK.
https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpolitico.se%2Fartikel%2F8677%2Fbrinnande-kors-vid-asylboende%2F&edit-text=

Arms weren't raised. Period.

Right, an autopsy report doesn't show whether someone had his arms up or not. What the autopsy report shows that Brown was hit in the hand at close range once, and this likely happened during the altercation at Wilsons car. Then there was some medical examiner, who was in no way connected to the official investigation who said that this meant he couldn't have had his hands up. That same person was later saying that her statements were taken out of context by the press. In reality, she was considering several scenarios that would result in similar autopsy findings, and one such scenario was one where he indeed didn't have his hands up. And that was the only scenario that the media then covered.

The actual autopsy report however, does not say that Michael Brown did not have his hands up at the moment he got shot the other 4-5 times. Read this.

Is it really so hard to believe that the police shot someone who had his hands up? Are you really only interested in finding supposed racism in the African American community?