Theres an old cynical saying about how grand juries are so biased toward prosecutors that theyd indict a ham sandwich. But not, apparently, if the ham wears a badge. Im not anti-police and think its inarguably one of the hardest and most complex professions in the world. Especially in a major city like New York, or even St. Louis. But Ive also served on a grand jury. In New York. For almost a month. And the one thing they drill into you in instructions is that it is not your job to determine guilt or innocence, only to decide if there is sufficient evidence to send a case on to trial. Thats it. In the Garner case, there is a video showing a group of policemen whose actions killed an unarmed man, and at least one of those officers was violating his own employers rules in using a banned chokehold. If a police dept outlaws something for its own officers, how is videotaped evidence of the transgression not grounds enough all by itself for sending this up to a jury trial to examine further? I truly dont understand what this grand jury was thinking, and since Im sure it had a multi-racial composition (this being New York), I dont think this failure is about prejudice per se. Theres something weirder -- and maybe worse -- going on here. In both Ferguson and in NYC, we couldnt even get a disturbing incident of a mans violent death INTO the judicial system to be evaluated, let alone ruled on. I have no idea why that is, and Id love to see this question given some active attention.
Posted on: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 04:30:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015