1.) Witnesses are relaying what happened as they perceive (judged) it (not what they witnessed)
That's an issue.
Witnesses can be unreliable just because most are not trained observers.
It reminds me of an example I read about where a group of people are asked to count how many times a group of people pass a basketball on a court in a video that is subsequently played for them.
After the video is played they are also asked an additional question about the gorilla that walked on the court while people were passing the basketball.
A lot of them then ask "What Gorilla?"
Then the video is played again and sure enough a person in a gorilla suit onto the court turns to look at the camera briefly, while people are passing a basketball, then walks off again.
Some people never recall seeing the gorilla because they're too busy focusing on counting.
Different witnesses can look at the same incident and tell you different versions not because some are lying and others are not but just because the human brain isn't a perfect recording device.
And that's the problem. The police are effectively above the law. This is far from an isolated instance.
And that's the problem. The police are effectively above the law. This is far from an isolated instance.
This should be judged on whatever evidence that can be gathered says happened.
It is quite possible that Officer Wilson was in a situation where events unfolded in a way where a reasonable person would fear for his life and he should be exonerated.
I'm on the fence now.
I haven't heard of any absolutely conclusive physical evidence and eyewitnesses are relating different versions of how events unfolded.
Unfortunately many people will bring their own viewpoints and look at this through a prism.
"Police always abuse power" "Teenagers today are nothing but thugs."
It's like having over 7 billion people on earth has driven people collectively unsane.
.....