http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/...-edward-nero-found-not-guilty-on-all-charges/ What's really telling to me is the quote from Gray's attorney. Frankly, it's so honest a reaction that I am having a hard time believing that this is the attorney for the family of the man who died:
I hope not. According to NPR, there were only 1 dozen protesters outside to the courthouse at the time of the verdict. Of course, when the officer exited those dozen chased him down the street yelling "murderer" or something like that per NPR. This was an odd charge though. The DA had charged the cop with "assault" simply for arresting Gray. Per one media source, this may be the first time an officer has been charged with assault for arresting someone.
This. I wish everybody who never heard the evidence but still blabbed about a factfinder (judge or jury) being crazy for rendering a particular verdict would listen to this.
They deserve credit for their sanity? I understand the point you're trying to make, but I bet you could phrase it much better. After all, isn't sanity and rationality supposed to be the default state for the vast majority of the citizenry of any polite society?
And this article is indicative of the problem. It presumes Nero's guilt to drive the political narrative. However, there's no discussion of the evidence against the officer and no explanation for why she thinks the judge rendered the wrong verdict. It's nothing but factually-blind political rhetoric. Despite that, it's taken seriously.
In these days of internet "journalism" facts and logic have their place ... mostly somewhere else. I keep hearing there is inherent bias in the New York Times and NPR, but mostly their reporting includes facts and attributed opinion. The Guardian, ThinkProgress, Breitbart, Fox, MSNBC, Huffpo, have no qualms about letting facts and opinions all get jumbled up and too often make no realistic effort to reach out for intelligently expressed contrary opinions.