[tshile]

No, but I can blame them for going after headlines instead of reporting responsibly; which they do far too often.

I can also blame the people that fall for it every time as well, as they're equally part of the problem.

The other side isn't saying much because there is an investigation going on. Too many people are not willing to wait for it. They'd rather make assumptions and draw their own conclusions then chastise those that refuse to accept them prematurely.

The rush to judgement that the officer did something wrong is no more correct than the rush to judgement that Mr. Brown was a criminal (or at best a future criminal) who did something wrong. Both sides are equally irresponsible at this time, which is something that used to be worth a chuckle but more and more has just become sad.

[lotsofmangos]

It isn't that they are not saying much.

It is that what they are saying makes very little sense.

The information from St. Louis County Police Chief is that an unarmed Michael Brown died 35 feet away from a police car, from being shot several times, due to an altercation inside that car.

And that to know anything further will take 6 weeks of toxicology.

edit - in answer to the further point below:

I see it as a problem when there are supposedly no facts in a case of someone being shot multiple times in broad daylight with several witnesses, followed up almost immediately by a large team of police who are fully able to cordon off and investigate the scene, who then claim that they cannot say anything because they want 6 weeks to do toxicology.

Toxicology.

For what, lead allergies?

[tshile]

The police chief gave a brief press conference following the event which was an admitted restatement of the officer's view of what happened, with everything qualified with the word allegedly. Since then his department has lost jurisdiction over the investigation and the FBI has yet to issue a statement.

Neither of which is 'one side' saying anything of any importance. The media has convinced tons of people that they have, but that doesn't actually mean that they have.

People are going nuts over something with no facts in the case. They have the officer's statements via the police chief, witness statements via the media, and a bunch of publicity seeking individuals with no clue what actually happened riling everyone up.

You do not see how that is a problem?

[maerF0x0]

> with no facts in the case.

afaik testimony matters in a case, no?

[tshile]

I wasn't aware we've had a trial?

Yes, testimony matters, it absolutely does. But not the testimony the media shows us. Ascribing legitimacy to The Court of Public Opinion is dangerous.