So we know by now that, according to extra-updated autopsy reports, Michael Brown wasn't shot in the back, even though we knew before according to initially-updated autopsy reports that he was, which works out perfectly. Now everyone has something to believe to get mad about, all based on the same trustworthy liars who are either trustworthy or liars, depending on when you hear from them and what you are inclined to believe at the time you hear from them. The Baltimore riots makes it perfect, given that in that particular occasion--depending on whether or not you believe the people who report WMDs, shots in the back, climate change, no shots in the back, and peace talks begun in earnest--it was an actual asshole who got theoretically killed by the presumed negligence of mostly black police officers, which would appear to change the story at this particular point in time unless the story later changes.
This gives everyone a horse in the race, or some skin in the game, just like Obama promised. All the people who heard that Michael Brown was shot in the back can disregard that he wasn't, and all the people who heard that Michael Brown was shot in the front can disregard that he was shot in the back, and given how everything we think we know comes through the looking glass, we can all feel justified at any given point in time. Rioters don't get that they've been manipulated into making a stand over the worst possible example cases, while critical racists are too willfully blind to acknowledge that any given riot is about accumulated hell, rather than the few incidents the media releases.
Just recently, some of the good ole boys in Georgia got away with paying minuscule damages to one of the many, many babies they've burned nearly to death during one of their cowardly pre-emptive strikes--here's the link from Terra 2014 about the original raid, where the sheriffs bravely grenaded a house in the middle of the night for fear that, when they charged inside in full body armor, there might be one guy with one pistol shooting back (they're nearly as brave as Navy SEALs in that regard).
Cops maiming toddlers with flash-bangs is sort of the domestic version of the tribal wedding. Put a toddler in a crib, and there's instantly an increased percentage chance that some yahoo who was too afraid to go to Iraq will lob in a grenade, just like trying to celebrate a marriage in Pakistan brings a huge jump in the chance of a drone. What is it about babies and weddings that attracts Americans with bombs? Or is that a rhetorical question?
The crow of it all, though, is, is it really true? If Michael Brown was shot in the back, but then he wasn't, did the sheriffs really blow up another baby in order to solve a victimless crime? (And, baby of innocent parents, no less--as we all know, it's just fine for cops to throw grenades at babies if their parents had been using meth. Those ones don't even make the news.)
But is it all merely a crowesque fantasy? Do they just keep coming up with baby-grenade stories in order to achieve some unfathomably vulgar result under whatever they're secretly calling COINTELPRO these days?