No doubt. I was just trying to say that, while they can bring any charge they want, the jury will often see the overreach in case like this. I know I brought up the Trayvon Martin case earlier to help make a point. Reconsider that case. As the trial was presented to the jury, it became obvious that the prosecution had overreached by pressing for 2nd Degree Murder. It was such a blatant mistake by the prosecution that they began grasping at any straw they could, even considering bringing "child abuse" charges against George Zimmerman.
I bring this up to say that we can't just throw around charges like murder and expect them to stick.
Again, a prosecutor can ask for any charge he wishes. Even AFTER the grand jury says no, he can still bring charges.
A prosecutor CAN throw around any charge he wishes. They do it all the time. It's not a grand jury's purpose to decide guilt or innocence but rather if there is ample evidence to warrant a trial. If there's months of evidence to be reviewed, there's ample evidence to move to trial.
If the prosecutor in the Mike Brown case wanted to indict for murder, there is absolutely no reason at all to present ALL of the available evidence. It amounts to legal buffoonery, and any legal defense attorney or prosecutor who is being honest will tell you there's no reason to do what the prosecutor did if he were trying to prosecute.
The fact that the national guard was called up before the "Decision" affirms what was known the minute the prosecutor said it would take weeks to review all of the evidence.
That's an IMMEDIATE "he doesn't want to prosecute".
And they didn't just throw around charges. A man was shot dead. It was either murder, manslaughter or a rightful(in the eyes of the law) killing. So nothing was just thrown around.
Would you actually prefer the prosecutor have twisted the evidence and deceptively addressed the grand jury just to take someone to trial?
See you're confused again. It is NOT the prosecutor's JOB to NOT take someone to trial. His JOB is to push for the indictment and to PROSECUTE.
It has nothing to do with being deceptive and twisting of evidence especially in this instance. The only deception demonstrated here was from a prosecutor hired to prosecute who wasn't trying to prosecute.
Even when the evidence was fairly overwhelming that the media's narrative was not accurate?
Then don't send it to the grand jury. If he thought there wasn't ample evidence , he didn't have to give the case to a grand jury.
But when you're trying to not do the job you were hired to do, he deserves to be fired and disbarred.
It's an extremely low bar and grand juries generally ALWAYS indict if a prosecutor brings a case before them because the bar is so low.
But this was a deliberate design to bypass due process and amazingly the folks always talking about "the rule of law" applauded it.
