What Would End The Protests?

ZHawke wrote: Just wondering, anyone care to try to explain the Grand Jury process, not only in this incident, but in others, as well?

The true purpose of a grand jury is to examine the evidence and determine if there is probable cause to support a criminal charge. Their purpose is to prevent an innocent person from being charged with a crime by the government and to ensure that the government doesn't formally accuse someone of committing a crime without the evidence to back up that accusation.

Guilt or innocence isn't part of their purpose, only whether or not the government has in their possession enough evidence against the person to formally accuse them of committing a crime. The grand jury is a firewall between the government and the people to ensure that the former doesn't stampede over the rights of the latter and that the evidence alone, not prejudice, malice or political expediency, justifies a formal accusation of committing a crime. If you remember, the prosecutor in the Zimmerman/Martin case didn't present the case to a grand jury first, which is why that was such a miscarriage of justice from the get go. That prosecution was done purely for political expediency.

The grand jury exists to inform the prosecutor if enough evidence exists for them to pursue prosecuting a person before it is done, not to be a tool of the prosecution in pursuing prosecution. It is one of the checks and balances to prevent unjust prosecutions by the government. A prosecutor goes to the grand jury to ask them if there is sufficient evidence to proceed. Now, the prosecutor can go in there convinced that they do and seeking to convince the grand jury of that, or they can go in there saying they want the evidence examined and a determination made before they go any further. Sounds like the DA did the latter with regards to Officer Wilson. Here's what I have, is it enough to proceed? And he was told that no, it wasn't.

PrintSmith wrote:

ZHawke wrote: Just wondering, anyone care to try to explain the Grand Jury process, not only in this incident, but in others, as well?

The true purpose of a grand jury is to examine the evidence and determine if there is probable cause to support a criminal charge. Their purpose is to prevent an innocent person from being charged with a crime by the government and to ensure that the government doesn't formally accuse someone of committing a crime without the evidence to back up that accusation.

Guilt or innocence isn't part of their purpose, only whether or not the government has in their possession enough evidence against the person to formally accuse them of committing a crime. The grand jury is a firewall between the government and the people to ensure that the former doesn't stampede over the rights of the latter and that the evidence alone, not prejudice, malice or political expediency, justifies a formal accusation of committing a crime. If you remember, the prosecutor in the Zimmerman/Martin case didn't present the case to a grand jury first, which is why that was such a miscarriage of justice from the get go. That prosecution was done purely for political expediency.

The grand jury exists to inform the prosecutor if enough evidence exists for them to pursue prosecuting a person before it is done, not to be a tool of the prosecution in pursuing prosecution. It is one of the checks and balances to prevent unjust prosecutions by the government. A prosecutor goes to the grand jury to ask them if there is sufficient evidence to proceed. Now, the prosecutor can go in there convinced that they do and seeking to convince the grand jury of that, or they can go in there saying they want the evidence examined and a determination made before they go any further. Sounds like the DA did the latter with regards to Officer Wilson. Here's what I have, is it enough to proceed? And he was told that no, it wasn't.

Thank you for that. Seriously.

Two things come to mind:

1. When you referred to the prosecution in the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman incident as being a "miscarriage of justice", I can only assume from your previous posts in other threads you believe it was a miscarriage of justice as pertains to George Zimmerman, and that he was unjustly accused, right?

2. Should the prosecutor, in this case, have possibly recused himself and his office from the investigation and allowed an independent agency (not the Justice Department or any other Federal law enforcement agency) to move forward with the investigation? This would have been in order to try and avoid any appearance whatsoever of bias.

Nope, precisely because of the travesty that resulted from the accusation of George Zimmerman when a "special prosecutor" was named to bring charges for political expediency. Taking the case to a grand jury effectively removes the decision from the DA's office. If the grand jury says proceed, the DA proceeds. If they say no dice, no prosecution.

Now, if the grand jury said proceed and the DA declined to prosecute, which happened in the Ramsey case here in Colorado, then you have an argument for a special prosecutor to step in. If you have a DA who won't take anything to the grand jury and won't prosecute, then you might have an argument that can be supported. Such is not the case here.

Here you had a DA present evidence and witnesses to the grand jury. The grand jury was able to question those witnesses themselves, examine the evidence themselves, ask questions of the prosecutor themselves. Here you had a DA asking the grand jury, empaneled members of the very community that was in crisis, if he had enough to proceed, if he had enough to formally charge Officer Wilson with committing a crime. And despite knowing what their findings were likely to result in, they stood tall and said that there was no true bill. That took a lot of courage on the part of those grand jurors.

PrintSmith wrote: Nope, precisely because of the travesty that resulted from the accusation of George Zimmerman when a "special prosecutor" was named to bring charges for political expediency. Taking the case to a grand jury effectively removes the decision from the DA's office. If the grand jury says proceed, the DA proceeds. If they say no dice, no prosecution.

Now, if the grand jury said proceed and the DA declined to prosecute, which happened in the Ramsey case here in Colorado, then you have an argument for a special prosecutor to step in. If you have a DA who won't take anything to the grand jury and won't prosecute, then you might have an argument that can be supported. Such is not the case here.

Here you had a DA present evidence and witnesses to the grand jury. The grand jury was able to question those witnesses themselves, examine the evidence themselves, ask questions of the prosecutor themselves. Here you had a DA asking the grand jury, empaneled members of the very community that was in crisis, if he had enough to proceed, if he had enough to formally charge Officer Wilson with committing a crime. And despite knowing what their findings were likely to result in, they stood tall and said that there was no true bill. That took a lot of courage on the part of those grand jurors.

Well, I looked for it, but couldn't find the bowing down emoticon for this post. You've explained this very well, and with none of the ....... exhibited in other discussions we've had. For that, especially, I thank you. These are the kind of questions and answers I'm more than willing to engage in. Thank you.

Please don't anyone take this post to mean "they did it too". I'm merely trying to bring a little perspective to the table here. One really does, in my opinion, need to look at how the coverage of these two disparate types of groups differs:

storify.com/betakateenin/white-people-riots

Is that referring to drunk idiots that get out of control celebrating team victories?
Because just a picture of a white guy in a sea of drunk idiots isn't a racial thing.

ZHawke wrote: Please don't anyone take this post to mean "they did it too". I'm merely trying to bring a little perspective to the table here. One really does, in my opinion, need to look at how the coverage of these two disparate types of groups differs:

storify.com/betakateenin/white-people-riots

Who in this thread said anything about white people not ever rioting? Were you around here during the OWS crap? Anarchists don't come in one color and really has nothing to do with this anyway. If you watch the Fergusoon looting footage, you will clearly see white scumbags making off with whatever they can carry. So what's the point?

Rick wrote:

ZHawke wrote: Please don't anyone take this post to mean "they did it too". I'm merely trying to bring a little perspective to the table here. One really does, in my opinion, need to look at how the coverage of these two disparate types of groups differs:

storify.com/betakateenin/white-people-riots

Who in this thread said anything about white people not ever rioting? Were you around here during the OWS crap? Anarchists don't come in one color and really has nothing to do with this anyway. If you watch the Fergusoon looting footage, you will clearly see white scumbags making off with whatever they can carry. So what's the point?

The word INTEGRITY is obsolete in today's society...(the question is...HOW do you reinstate it?)

HEARTLESS wrote: Is that referring to drunk idiots that get out of control celebrating team victories?
Because just a picture of a white guy in a sea of drunk idiots isn't a racial thing.

Never said it was a racial thing. That's your inference.

Rick wrote:

ZHawke wrote: Please don't anyone take this post to mean "they did it too". I'm merely trying to bring a little perspective to the table here. One really does, in my opinion, need to look at how the coverage of these two disparate types of groups differs:

storify.com/betakateenin/white-people-riots

Who in this thread said anything about white people not ever rioting? Were you around here during the OWS crap? Anarchists don't come in one color and really has nothing to do with this anyway. If you watch the Fergusoon looting footage, you will clearly see white scumbags making off with whatever they can carry. So what's the point?

Did I say anyone in this thread said anything about white people not ever rioting? If so, I don't remember saying that. The fact is the kinds of riots in the photos I provided a link to illustrate that rioting isn't exclusive to situations like that in Ferguson. Nor are they covered as extensively as the ones in Ferguson have been covered. Racism? Depends on how one looks at it, I guess.