Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
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.
|
If a joe schmo shoots an unarmed man, the DA doesn't believe that charges are warranted, and there's no massive pressure to avoid a PR disaster, it shouldn't go to trial or a grand jury.
As for juries rarely reaching an agreement to not indict, that's because of the completely imbalanced nature of the grand jury system, and an indictment of the system itself. Likely why the US is the only common law country to still employ it, and even in the US half the states don't use them.
I think it's telling that, from the vast majority of commentators I've read, there's little criticism of the grand jury's decision, only criticism of the DA's approach. I.e. "Ya, the jury was reasonable in deciding not to indict after seeing all of the evidence, but the DA could have used the inherent biases of the system to ensure an indictment but didn't, which was wrong."
As I said before, a DA's choice to present all of the evidence and let a jury decide seems like a completely just process.