Luckily, they (say, a village family in rural Ghana) are equipped with essentially the same meat computer your are. They are perfectly able to perceive the fact that the neighbor is dying with blood pouring out of her body, just like tens of thousands of other people just have. They are able to perceive that the ultimate social isolation is having everyone you care about die. It's nice to see you're not one of those people who thinks that a farmer in Liberia, who deals with life and death every day as he tends to livestock or hunts, isn't somehow too dim-witted to grasp cause and effect when he has the basic facts. This is about social behavior DESPITE knowing the facts.

Unless it's what's just killed off everyone you know. Or look at places like Ferguson, MO, where culture just decided to burn down local shops in a tantrum over reality disagreeing with an instantly concocted bogus media mythology. Culture, like the culture of castigating your neighbors for daring to go get an education or acquiring a broader vocabulary - as seen in swaths of urban culture or patches of, say, Appalachia - is often destructive, the opposite of valuable. Pious political correctness, which employees poisonous moral equivalence in the name of assuaging misplaced guilt over the fact that some cultures actually work better than others, preserves and actually perpetuates that destructiveness.

Yes, and the three countries in the worst shape (as it relates to the spread of Ebola) all have a miserable record of taking lots of external support that could be educating their people, bolstering their healthcare systems, and generally improving the lives of everyone in those countries. But because of cultural inertia and rampant corruption (you know, the people who feel entitled to skim the support cash/material personally and not do things like march out into the rougher parts of their own country to explain to the rural population that they're killing themselves with primitive rituals), those are places that can't shake off the problem.

Do you want to know who is a smug western douche? You are. "Africa" isn't a place you can talk about in sweeping terms like you just have. Your dim, uninformed vision of it as a single, monocultural place with a common level of education and sophistication is absurd (and incredibly condescending, Mr. Holier Than Thou). "The entire continent" isn't the same. Countries like Nigeria have seen cases in this outbreak, but have headed it off at the pass because the population, culture, and approach to things like this are very different there than they are in, say, Liberia.

I have no trouble telling ANY group of superstitious people that what they think is ridiculous. Especially when they do things insist a capricious god is going to cure their kid's cancer, or kiss the bodies of Ebola victims, and then wander back to their own homes and, a couple of weeks later, wonder why their whole family is dying - despite a helpful aid worker risking her life to explain to them the basic facts of life and death. It's the 21st century. Billions and billions of dollars in aid flows into the countries most vulnerable to issues like this, and it gets squandered, diverted, or mis-applied because of toxic levels of corruption by comparatively educated people. They want to have a piece of that foreign aid action while also having the lazy inertia of backwards cultures that can't cope with this much human density. That sense of entitlement to both a primitive past and a piece of the largess of other countries that have moved on - it's unmistakable.

No, the entitled assholes are the ones who feel no reason to stop doing the very things that are spreading the disease. You're the one with the skin color obsession, everyone else is talking about what people actually do. Like laying hands on the corpse of someone who's just died of Ebola, while simultaneously asking the rest of the world to risk their lives and spend their money and time to come help ... even as they refuse to stop their idiotic, suicidal customs. That is a sense of entitlement, and a ridiculous part of a culture that simply has to stop if they want to quit spreading that disease around.

You just doubt that the grand jurors listened to eye witness testimony from the half dozen in question (out of the 60 witnesses they heard from) that actually told them what they needed to hear. Yes, they heard from LOTS of other witnesses who had anything from minor variations to outright debunked fabrications to share, but - as the prosecutor seeking charges against Wilson said - they heard from a consistent, corroborated core of media-averse African American witnesses who told the tale you don't want to hear.

Why are you focusing on the known liars? What's the point? We all know that dozens of people reported pure BS in order to get attention or while grinding some I-hate-police axe or the like. I'm not mentioning those people because, just like the grand jury concluded, their testimony was anywhere from muddle-headed to outright fiction-for-malice's sake. You're the only one who cares what the liars had to say. But they're irrelevant. It's the physical evidence and the credible witnesses that it corroborates that count. And speaking of counting, you're still not finding it comfortable enough to count all fingers on one hand, and move on to the next hand? Really? Or should we just right back to your opening complaint, the implication of doubt and dismissal about their testimony because you hadn't bothered to read it?

A judge is the ONLY person who gets to decide how that information is made available. That means he goes over every bit of it for context, and the entire package is his product, with his reputation at stake for making mistakes in what's released and how it impacts the anonymity of the witnesses involved. There is no provider of that information except for the judge.

I realize that English is not your native tongue, so I appreciate how much you're trying here. But we're talking about YOUR assertion that the documents in front of your eyes don't include the testimony of eye witnesses. Or have you finally got around to reading it, and you're changing your story, just like the debunked media-frenzy "witnesses" did?

And, ranting? You're the one who's been linked directly to the body of documents that completely satisfies your fake concern that the eye witnesses didn't really exist, and that their testimony doesn't say what the grand jury concluded that it said. So much energy you're putting into pretending it's not there for you to read! Why?

Because everything put in front of the grand jury is also available, online, right in front of you. Not that you'd want to see that or anything, because it would take all the fun out of that petulant little fit you're having.

Knowing there would be people with the hearts set on vilifying the cop and the investigation, the prosecutor made the rather unusual decision to let the grand jury take an unusual amount of time to make their own investigative queries, to see any and all testimony they wanted (including obviously spurious stuff from all over the internet, and already debunked nonsense from the street - like Brown's running buddy's description of Wilson shooting out his cruiser window, standing over Brown and shooting him in the back ... all stuff that didn't happen, per the evidence and multiple completely-consistent eye witnesses). And then, so you could relax a little bit, he asked the judge overseeing the panel to pre-emptively make arrangements to immediately publish a mountain of information so you could exactly what the grand jury had to work with. What the grand jury saw wasn't just what the prosecutor wanted to show them, it included the output of an army of investigators from the DoJ trying to turn the case into a federal civil rights violation case, and more.

No, that's the account based on recordings of radio communications, and based on the testimony of multiple credible eye witnesses, corroborated by the physical evidence. And that's the account that the grand jury mulled over, along with a lot of obvious BS from all sort of other sources, that led the panel to realize there's no THERE there. Just like the DoJ investigation, in which Eric Holder was passionately, desperately hoping to find some sort of evidence of a civil rights violation, is coming up with a whole lot of nothing.

The people who keep trotting out the false narrative are just trying to wish away the 25 days of work done by the grand jury, and the untold thousands of man hours and millions of dollars tied up by Holder and the FBI, that are delivering exactly no police officer to string up.

That might be something to consider, except of course that's pure fantasy on your part. Multiple credible eye witnesses (unlike you, and unlike the people who changed their stories or finally admitted they didn't actually see it happen after all) pointed out that the officer didn't either of the two things you're mentioning. So why bring them up? What's your agenda, in manufacturing a false narrative?

Wow, you just keep on going with the whole feigned ignorance thing, don't you? The evidence presented to the grand jury could ONLY be released to the public through the piece-by-piece review of a judge (the same judge that sat the panel, not that you care, since the judge is fictional, right?). That judge is the one to decide whether or not the anonymity guaranteed to witnesses (who, you know, don't want to have their houses burned down by those thoughtful, peaceful protesters) is sufficiently preserved in the documents presented to people like you as you are offered the evidence you don't want to acknowledge.

Your supposed fundamental misunderstanding (again, I'm presuming that on this topic it's fake, and just as deliberate as your little bit of theater about non-existent witnesses) about the way that big pile of evidence was curated and released, and which checks and balances are in place, says plenty about your intentions here. What do you gain by saying there's no judge involved when the fact that there is one was plainly discussed in the press conference, in the summary documents, and by every last journalist and legal commentator asked to bundle all of this up for you? Yeah, the talking heads who are seeking to sell the idea that a grand jury is some sort of novel "secret proceeding" that was dreamed up just for the occasion to be unjust to the guy who assaulted the cop are going to assist you in your characterization, of course - their narrative loses a lot of its inflammatory BS vitality when actual details about the case and the process are discussed. And so they distort at every opportunity, and pretend that the evidence seen by the GJ doesn't matter, and that only a trial would show us the REAL evidence, blah blah blah.

Neither they, nor you, would have to spend so much energy trying to talk the evidence away or establish the myth that it wasn't published right in front of your eyes if they hadn't become so irrationally invested in the BS claims of a few people in the immediate aftermath of Brown's robbery and foolish assault. Media outlets who have been cheerleading for riots and who crave a minority victimhood cause du jour manufacture them if that's what they have to do to get attention. Pesky things like credible eye witnesses, physical evidence, and the documents that lay out exactly what was shown to (and asked for by) the GJ are terribly inconvenient, aren't they. You seem to know how that feels.

Found in the form of endless articles and breathless press coverage, referred to upstream and downstream from the deliberately misleading post. The user made an assertion that cannot, in the context of that person being an online, forum-using, plugged-in, slashdot type of human, be considered in any context other than deliberately misleading.

Which means you didn't even give the judge's published material a cursory glance.

I'm not asking you to trust anything I say. I suggesting that you know right where the testimony is, and the lengthy reports on the forensic evidence, and that you're pretending you can't find it, parse it, or incorporate those facts into your understanding of the situation. You can't be unable to do it, which means that either you're unwilling to do it, or you've got an agenda of some kind that calls for you to try to wish it all away.

No, I called someone a liar because - despite amply available facts to the contrary - they're spreading false information, on purpose. You know, deliberate deception. Lying.

Why? Here you are commenting on a matter for which all sorts of searchable, link-able documents have been provided, summarized, and repeated (in the sense of the germane details) for you to read. And yet you're pretending that you you're baffled about the availability of that information. You can't be that obtuse, and I was being generous calling you lazy - because you're acting like that information doesn't exist - why?

Not when the topic being discussed is that person's laziness, right? That's just a simple observation.

Well, right. Because the the facts were provided by the corroborated eye witness testimony in front of the grand jury, and by the abundant physical evidence - and nicely wrapped up in the widely disseminated documents that you have indeed been too lazy to read (or too unwilling to, since it establishes a narrative you don't like).

The prosecution released all of that testimony, available for you to read. But to save you the trouble, it was summed up during the press conference, because it was very important, in context. But just for fun, consider reading it, just like all of the journalists who have already done so, and helpfully explained the same thing so that people like you can get their heads on straight.

I'm calling him what he was: minus some important details. As pointed out once investigators from multiple agencies, including the FBI got around to listening to recordings of the actual communication. And no, from a distance of course Wilson didn't know that Brown was the guy who had moments before robbed the store. That's why he didn't know who he was possibly dealing with until he got up to them in the street, and saw what he saw. Are you unable to follow the details, here? Why?

I might, but that didn't happen. Multiple eyewitnesses say it didn't happen. The only person making that claim is the warrant-out-on-him guy who also - right after it happened - said that Brown was shooting out the car window, shot a kneeling Brown multiple times in the back, etc. You know, Mr. Lying His Ass Off guy ... who, strangely enough, you think is more credible than multiple African American witnesses who went to the police to tell them what they saw. How are you measuring credibility, here?

Except, you'd be hallucinating, since witnesses say that didn't happen.

It's a shame about your cognitive skills. He went for his gun to get Brown to back away from PUNCHING HIM IN THE FACE THROUGH HIS CRUISER WINDOW. Once Brown's thumb got winged by a shot in the car, Brown started to move off, and Wilson got out in order to keep him from getting away following Brown's assault on a police officer. Feel free to read that a couple of times so you can get that complex chain of events straight in your head.

Such pain, there in your head, where it must hurt to process facts. Ouch, huh?

That's the distance from the cruiser, not the distance from the officer, who was pursuing the guy who had just assaulted him. Mr. Stoked On Adrenaline Having Just Strong-Armed A Merchant And Assaulted A Cop decided to turn around and rush Wilson. The distance between them was nowhere near the distance between Brown and the cruiser that Wilson had left behind.

So we're back to wondering what people who choose to lie about these facts (by spinning fantasy, or through omission of important details) think they're going to achieve. Shouldn't you be out burning down your local grocery store or something?