[niknik]

Makes sense. Puts the pressure on the black protesters to not attack police. Obviously since the police who will be there aren't the police they are protesting.

[30564U]

It's fairly common practice in the US to enpanel a Grand Jury for any officer involved shooting or use of force that results in death or great bodily injury. No conspiracy...sorry.

[sunairco]

Yes it is. Except they examine evidence and hear from wittnesses along with expert testimony. This is not evidentary. The don't generally transcribe this for evidence. That's not the point to empanel a GJ. The are there to decide if this should go to trial. They also don't hear testimony of the accused. That's not typical. There is nothing about this case that couldn't have been taken before a regular jury rather then a GJ mediating it. This was all done for the officer's advantage and allowing his lawyers access to a tremendous amount of pre-trail evidence that's formally been entered into the record. The fact that he appeard before them with his script of the events and they have not been sequestered and no way can be immune from media all these months doesn't make this look too good to return true verdict. The leaks alone of the forensics and the 3rd party analysis is something they couldn't have possibly not heard about already

[Oswald2001]

There is a definite criminal influence in the legal proceedings.

The politicians are intimidated by all the Ghetto Trash Thug Criminals who are just itching to riot themselves into all kinds of free stuff.

Just like they did recently.



"Yo, y'all lak mah new 60 inch plasma? Fight da powa, cuz!"

[sunairco]

I don't think it's sinister, but it's obvious the DA doesn't want the responsibility of being against the police. He probably has higher politcial aspirations and if he took it to trial directly and won, he's politically dead. Better to offload this onto a GJ so it's not perceived as his fault.

In a normal situation, the DA convenes a Grand Jury and only feeds them what he wants them to hear to get a them to go for an indictment and it's biased to his favor. He's obviously poisoning the situation by allowing the officer to testify as well as plenty of evidence that's favorable to the officer. It's clear he's doing this in the hopes the don't indict. If they do, he's off the hook as making the call. Further placating the police and political interests, he's making all of this evidence and testimony record so it could be used at the trial to exonorate the officer by the defence if it happens. This is one situation that a DA doesn't really want to win and kill his carreer.

Read between the lines folks. This isn't only my observation, it seems there is a lot of legal pundits noticing the same thing.

I'm no lawyer, but I have been on a GJ for a term and several civil and criminal standard juries in my day. This isn't the way the game is played.

[Mr Poo]

Originally Posted by sunairco ↗

I don't think it's sinister, but it's obvious the DA doesn't want the responsibility of being against the police. He probably has higher politcial aspirations and if he took it to trial directly and won, he's politically dead. Better to offload this onto a GJ so it's not perceived as his fault.

In a normal situation, the DA convenes a Grand Jury and only feeds them what he wants them to hear to get a them to go for an indictment and it's biased to his favor. He's obviously poisoning the situation by allowing the officer to testify as well as plenty of evidence that's favorable to the officer. It's clear he's doing this in the hopes the don't indict. If they do, he's off the hook as making the call. Further placating the police and political interests, he's making all of this evidence and testimony record so it could be used at the trial to exonorate the officer by the defence if it happens. This is one situation that a DA doesn't really want to win and kill his carreer.

Read between the lines folks. This isn't only my observation, it seems there is a lot of legal pundits noticing the same thing.

I'm no lawyer, but I have been on a GJ for a term and several civil and criminal standard juries in my day. This isn't the way the game is played.

That theory does make sense, but wouldn't letting off someone who (if they are) guilty would kill their political career even worse?

[TheVrist]

If the DA didn't want to prosecute the cop, the last thing you do is sit back and let the GJ.decided if he should be charged, because that forces the DA to represent the state.

If the DA was in on getting the cop off the hook, he would advice local police to formally charge him, then dismiss the charge.

No, it is simple, local or state hasn't had anything to hold him on, so now it goes to the higher level of court evaluation and investigation to determine if any charges are possible.

[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by Mr Poo ↗

That theory does make sense, but wouldn't letting off someone who (if they are) guilty would kill their political career even worse?

Ferguson is roughly 65% black. It would be in his political interest to fry this cop. This is why I don't believe the DA is tryin to skirt tale around it. He simply doesn't have a case to try.

[sunairco]

OK, do you have a better explanation for this travesty of a GJI? This isn't supposed to be the way this works if he really wants to fry this guy. He's the DA of MO, not one of the ADA's for the area. Ferguson is a black township and not like most of white MO. Whose favor do you think this guy is playing for if he has aspirations? White voters and powerful police unions. Why would this guy squander his opportunity to get this guy indicted. He's doing a half assed job if he is and making sure the defense is going to have a whopper amount of evidince without having to do much discovery. If anything, he should be cherry picking what he wants the GJ to hear and making none of it record. If pressed on a later time and his office looses, hey, I had no choice, the GJ indicted him. He's probably not going to prosecute the case, some first year ADA flunky is probably going to be up the best and brightest the police union can muster if it goes to trial. I've seen that happen each time down here we've had a police shooting. Seems like the dumbest and greenest ADA is chosen to butts heads with the best Sharks money can buy and the cop always gets off in a regular trial. Guaranteed. It doesn't affect the DA when he moves on to a judgeship or higher office.

If my hypothesis sounds crazy, try searching a bit about the GJ in Ferguson and look over op ed pieces and many seem to think somethings fishy.

You don't want to piss off the boys in blue and take out one of their own to satisfy a pound of flesh for an insignificant constituency that's wanting blood. That's career suicide.

[TheVrist]

Travesty of the GJI? I don't look at it that way, I view it as standard protocol. GJ in most states attorney's opinions are more of a pain in the ass, rather than an asset too their cause. I'm sure if hypothetically this DA was hoping to save a cop, wishes this never went across the GJ's desk.

The GJ is privy to all evidence, and testimonies, just like (as you say) the DA is able to spoon feed the GJ, so are the opposition. The GJ's predetermined verdict has absolutely no power behind it, other than forcing the states hand in an arrest, or a case closed verdict. If they find probable cause as representatives of the civil, they will formally charge him with whatever charges fit the bill, and the cop will see his day in court, with a real jury.

I'm sure at this point, the DA is damned if he does, damned if he don't. I don't see any fowl strategy in this. I just see typical finger pointers trying to build a case in favor of their opinion that weighs heavier in the opposite direction.

If by your theory holds any truth in it, and the DA is trying to shift blame onto the GJ. What is the problem in that anyway? Isn't it better the GJ of non-biased individuals, be the deciding factor? So he essentially did the public a favor.

Quite frankly the DA knows he don't have a case, there is no guilt here. The Cop is innocent, it don't matter who represents the state, the Cop (if he even gets charged) will have a team of the best lawyers.