Quote:
Originally Posted by AGDee
I think it was weird because they knew they had to try to give enough information to the public to help them understand why the grand jury made the determination they did in hopes of preventing violent and destructive protests. Of course it was not typical. You don't typically have that kind of attention focused on most grand jury decisions. There are rarely press conferences to tell people what a grand jury determined. This was an extreme circumstance.
I don't think people would have been any less pissed off after a jury trial if the result was the same.
From the information I gleaned out of the news conference and other things they've released online, I completely understand why they didn't press charges. Brown's blood in the vehicle, gun shots in the vehicle, the pattern of Brown's blood down the street showing that he turned around and was moving back toward the police car all indicate that the officer felt justifiably threatened, IMO.
|
I think people would have been less pissed if a trial resulted in no conviction. There weren't riots after Zimmerman was acquitted or after the Jordan Davis hung jury. People were angry but at least they were being heard. This smacks of cover-up.
There was enough evidence from witnesses to get past a preliminary hearing if McCullough just filed charges (ie. "charging by information"). The evidence would have been heard in open court, rather than behind closed doors. The process is as important as the result.
Grand juries stink. Too secretive.