Not until you mentioned it.

Not sure we want law officials put in a spot they have to release all info they have gathered about an on-going investigation to the public before it can be verified.
Then they will have become like modern day "news" reporters going around asking not for facts but how everyone involved feels.

I definitely agree, Wolfy.
My comment was that the information is now out there but you'll not see it on the evening news. cod forbid the media should decide to put out the truth and help defuse a situation.

If banks report info to a credit bureau that they have reason to believe is inaccurate or cannot prove to be accurate they have violated federal law (the FCRA). When the media reports inaccurate and/or unsubstantiated info, they get huge ratings, make a ton of money and accomplish their mission of mass control.

the US Attorney has already assumed this role, no need to let the police do it too, that would be a duplication of effort.

Perhaps it's just a matter of getting the "quantity discount" on wrongs committed over this Ferguson deal and all the myriad wrongs will equal a "right."

Right?

so the funeral for this young man was held yesterday, attended by over 2500 people, eulogy by Al Sharpton, who never met him, and more representation from the White House than attended former British PM Margaret Thatcher's funeral. My only question about the 2500 in attendance is where were these people when he was alive that could have influenced him positivley, who stepped in - or didn't - when he started down the wrong path?

No one from the government went to James Foley's funeral.

My only question remains why haven't we heard anything about the officer's injuries, or the witness statements or the other guy's recanting...???

Ongoing investigation. And they have to get it right as half the nation wants to string him up regardless of the truth of what happened, and they will not be happy even after the truth comes out.

TR - we have heard about them, otherwise how would you know to ask? But, i think you mean why has there been no "official word" regarding these outside of the Ferguson police chief. The grand jury convened last wednesday, and normally takes 2-4 weeks to return a no-bill or indictment. The police chief has done several news releases of information regarding the shooting, the officer's injury, the alledged strong-arm theft, and eyewitness reports that back up the officers claim.

of course, there has also been the call from the Governor for a "vigorous prosecution" of the officer.

and AG Eric Holder has promised a full investigation regardless of what the local investigation turns up - they did send 40 FBI agents to canvas for witnesses.

The truth will be what we want it to be, or else it will be a lie.

grand jury reconvening today to hear additional testimony...

Most have moved on to the next crisis opportunity.

Because you told me about it here, Happy.
I watch the news everyday (various stations but not faux news) and read online reports, etc. Nowhere other than when you posted it here, have I heard a word about the injuries to the police officer or any investigation, etc. Every single word I've heard has been from the viewpoint of Mr Brown be maligned and killed by the bad white police. I consider myself fairly well informed and if that's all I've heard, what has the average American to go on?

This. No matter what the real truth is, half the people will always deny it, lie about it, or say "well, what about when the exact opposite of this happens?". And if the real truth next time is the opposite of what the real truth is this time, the sides will just flip, and the denying, lying, and excuse-making will simply go from one side to the other.

Maybe you need to change the bolded section just to see what "the other side" says. Not saying either side gives the whole truth, but it helps to listen to both sides to find what is closer to the truth. Just a thought.

I think there's a big hole in the news media....we have the liberal side (CNN, CNBC, add whatever ones you wish) and the conservative side (FOX) covered....i want a truly centrist media outlet to emerge. Pipe dream i'm sure.

The problem is they all think they ARE centrist. People rarely see their own slants.

I can see that to a degree, but a lot of the 'conservatives' and 'liberals' that i know are very proud to call themselves such.

There have been two independent studies that have concluded Fox is the least bias of all major news outlets. But John Stewart wants you to believe differently. That said there is no doubt Fox has a conservative leaning. But their conservative leaning is less than the liberal leanings of NBC, ABC, ESPN, CNN, NPR, NYT etc.

Obviously we all seek our news from sources we want to hear from and I am in no way claiming that I spend a lot of time listening to news sources that I don't want to hear. But I was discussing the Israel/Terrorist (because I refuse to call Palestinians anything else) conflict with a friend of mine the other day. He is a left leaning person who gets most of his news from liberal outlets. I was surprised how poorly informed he was on the issues.

Except for a certain poster who calls himself a moderate. That poster was an off the rocker liberal.

How poorly informed he was or how much he disagreed with you?

it can certainly be a matter of perspective...in your mind, he is poorly informed. in his mind, you don't know what you're talking about.

the truth likely lies in between...

my biggest issue with any news provider is they all want more followers, so they feel they need to make a splash...they need to be the first with something...need to be sensational...which is why i choose to get 99% of my news from print media...

I wonder who that would be?