Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F
Nothing to substantiate this, but my theory of this case is that the DA looked at all of the evidence gathered and determined that a charge wasn't warranted - that there was no reasonable possibility that a jury, properly instructed, would return a guilty verdict.
However, the DA simply choosing not to charge Officer Wilson would have resulted in a firestorm many magnitudes bigger than even the current one, so he put the evidence he'd seen before a panel of citizens and allowed them to come to that conclusion.
If that is the case, it was the most just way this could have played out.
Frankly, say what you want about what is supposed to be the approach of a DA in a grand jury hearing, a DA who doesn't believe that charges are warranted but nonetheless uses the one sided nature of the grand jury to put a skewed version forward in order to get an indictment would sicken me and would be a massive affront to justice.
|
Let's be honest here:
If Darren Wilson was just joe schmo and shot an unarmed man, and he wasn't a police officer, the DA would've made sure this went to trial. Grand juries very rarely reach an agreement to
not indict a defendant.
The US desperately needs some kind of oversight in these incidents of police using deadly force, some kind of separate entity that investigates cases of police use of force, not a DA who regularly has to work with these same police in order to do his job.
There is no way that a DA that regularly works with a police force is going to risk his relationship with said police force in order to find an officer guilty, just as no police officer is going to out a fellow officer for excessive force, what with the fraternal nature of police.
This grand jury trial was grossly mishandled, just as pretty much every single thing since the shooting has been grossly mishandled by the Ferguson PD/StL PD/Governor of Missouri, etc. Top down, this whole situation has been marred with incompetence at best and corruption at worst.