(September 24, 2020 at 10:38 am)HappySkeptic Wrote:(September 24, 2020 at 9:59 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It's not as if there weren't crimes that the officers could be charged with. This was the expected outcome, another demonstration of the problem that has lead to our current state of civil unrest.
It isn't a prosecutor's job to charge people with anything they "could" possibly be charged wtih. They have a duty to only charge if they believe the evidence and law supports a charge, and that there is a reasonable chance of conviction. Anything else is prosecutorial misconduct.
Yea, the old saying goes, "A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich".
Which is why this ruling is bat shit insane. If the prosecutor is willing to go after the cop's bullets who disturbed the neighbors, but not he other cops's bullets that killed Breonna?
It is also NOT the job of a grand jury to convict. A grand jury's job is to consider if there is enough evidence to pass on to a court trial.
I don't see how the logic works that other bullets constitute a passing on to a trial for one cop because he didn't hit Breonna, but the other 6 that did hit her and killed her get a "meh well, what or you going to do"?
