That’s your opinion. You’re entitled to it, even if it is formed from a subset of the known facts. That timeline was formed based on the results of the PD's and DA's investigation into the matter. Are you objecting because it doesn't say that Gray was throwing himself around trying to get hurt? Or something else?
Because, if it's the "throwing himself around" possibility you're objecting to, then note the timing of the injury - after he was taken out of the van (still responsive) and then placed back in the van, in wrist and leg restraings, face-down on the bottom of the van.
For reference, here is a (stock) photo of the inside of a police transport van:
If he restrained at the wrists and ankles, face down, on the floor of the van, how could he have gotten himself up in order to throw himself around with enough force to break three vertebrae and crush his windpipe?
What is being cherry picked here? What other facts should be included?
>> What other facts should be included?
Can we wait until the trial and see?
Or would justice better be served by you taking a rope to the jail and personally hanging the obviously guilty officers?
By the way, can you tell me where your sacred “time line” came from?
Was it an impartial third party — like a jury — that has examined ALL the facts? Or was it from the prosecutor’s office? You know, a party with an ax to grind, and therefore highly motivated to pick suitable facts and even to distort them? A party with NO obligation and NO motivation to present opposing evidence?
I think we know the answer.
Been here before with Angela Corey, and the oh-so-corrupt prosecution team on that kangaroo court.
I know way better than to blindly accept the prosecutor’s version of ANYTHING.
But since you have an ax to grind yourself, you will happily swallow this one-sided crapola as gospel — and promulgate it as such.
Like I told you before — I understand your motivations. You’re a liberal troll. A skillful one, but still...
No sale.