If you continue to be under the impression he was killed because he was "jaywalking" then you believe a narrative and not actual evidence. You are basically Judge Gordon from the article since the facts of a case don't matter just a narrative put forward by people looking to push an agenda or, in this case, ratings.

If you continue to use descriptions like thug you expose your own biases. And you did not address the thrust of my argument: how can a dead citizen make his or her case against an officers testimony of their feelings?

My bias goes with the reports.

"how can a dead citizen make his or her case against an officers testimony of their feelings?"

That is not what the DoJ based their findings on, so it is an irrelevant argument.

If your not interested in a sensible justice system, I guess it is irrelevant.