Originally Posted by
buffalopundit
The grand jury construct is quite old and although it has a fact-finding function, it serves as little more than a prosecutorial rubber-stamp. Usually; (hence the "ham sandwich" quip everyone repeated this week).
The grand jury process is secret, one-sided, and completely controlled by law enforcement. If a prosecutor wants an indictment, he'll get one. By the same token, if he doesn't, there are tools at his disposal to avoid one. Compound that with the relationship that DAs have with police on a day-to-day basis, and cops will be very well coached on what to say to avoid an indictment.
I breezed through some of the other threads about Ferguson and noticed a lot of disagreement over key facts of the case. A lot of it had to do with people taking Wilson's testimony as gospel truth, and completely disregarding (if mentioning at all) any contrary evidence.
That is why there should have been an indictment and a trial. That is why Wilson's statements - as well as the testimony of every witness - should have been run through the system and its truth-finding mechanisms of cross-examination, credibility, etc.
With the NYC case, it's even more horrible because we have video of the actual event, and no one thinks that Eric Garner was acting violently or deserved to die.
With respect to Garner: sure, maybe he should have gone along quietly. But you know what? Sometimes you catch someone on a bad day, or they're angry at being targeted, and they refuse to do so. The police have the right to arrest, I suppose - but in this case query whether they could have just given him an appearance ticket and gone away. When arresting, they have the right to use reasonable force under the circumstances. Chokeholds are prohibited by NYPD policy. In this case, when Garner said, "I can't breathe", they should have taken their arms away from his windpipe. They killed him - the coroner said so. If the 6 cops you have responding to a piddly "selling loosies" call isn't enough, send for backup I guess, but don't use excessive force.
With respect to Michael Brown - here, too, even if you take what Wilson says at face value, there were at least 100 ways that encounter could have ended without a barrage of bullets at a kid who was 150 feet away. Cops are supposed to be trained professionals - we talk about how they put themselves at risk (and they do), but their position conveys upon them heightened responsibilities, as well as rights. Brown wasn't using deadly force against anyone. Deadly force was not justified in order to arrest him or get him to move onto the sidewalk.
In any event, all of these issues get resolved within the context of proper trials. Grand jury proceedings are not trials, they're not public, they don't result in findings of guilt or innocence. All of it is a tragedy, and ultimately reveals the horrible tolerance Americans have for violence.