Micheal Brown deserved to be shot.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, as I said an independent investigation yes. But you don't just charge someone with a crime (i.e. indict them, Losty) just because of who they are without sufficient evidence that a crime was actually committed.

The difference is, in a public trial, the evidence is aired, as opposed to prosecutor's investigation where the prosecutor decides what evidence to present, and what to suppress. The fact that the defendant -- the cop -- has no attorney is an injustice too, right? With a full-blooded trial, conducted by adversarial counsel, more facts are likely to be aired.

Besides, the mod is going to do what the mob is going to do. What makes you think an acquittal at trial would draw any different reaction than the grand jury's no true bill?

It isn't the job of the judicial system to ensure social tranquility; its job is to ensure that justice is rendered. How do you think that mission would be impeded by an adversarial trial of a government official accused of killing a citizen?

That an open process would likely tend to ameliorate anger at racial injustices is a plus, don't you agree? The policeman has a chance to clear his name; the city, county, state, or other polity has the opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to equal justice no matter the uniform one is wearing; the public is given reassurance that no one is above the law, not by empty words, but by firm action.

What, exactly, would be your objection?

---

I wanted to address this earlier, but didn't have time so here goes.

Yes the grand jury process can be manipulated because the prosecutor has control over what evidence that is presented. They manipulate the jury by only presenting the evidence they want the jury to hear. Doing this would be unethical. I even pointed out earlier in this thread that prosecutors are ethically bound to present evidence of innocence as well as guilt to a grand jury earlier in thread after being told that the prosecutor should have manipulated the jury in order to get the desired outcome. That would be in my opinion unethical.

I have yet to see any evidence that the prosecutor did anything like that in this case. As far as I can tell the prosecutor presented all the available evidence including conflicting eye witness accounts and the physical evidence. This is exactly what they should do. Not manipulate the jury by leaving out the parts that might sway the jury in the other direction. So if anyone can point out how the prosecutor manipulated the jury please be my guest.

[Emphasis added -- Parks]

In order to make the emphasized assessment in this case, you would have to have access to all the evidence, and not just the evidence presented to the grand jury.

And furthermore, my point is not limited to this case alone; the fact is that we have seen even death-penalty cases overturned due to recanted testimony that was adduced from "witnesses" by an aggressive interrogation. The idea that prosecutors would not act unethically is not borne out in theory or in practice; they do so constantly, because in America they must stand election and therefore must present good statistics.

The prosecutor in this case may not even have known he was selecting evidence, to be clear -- not all biases are conscious. That is exactly why such evidence should be reviewed by a defense lawyer charged with the shielding of his client, so that he or she may point out flaws and fallacies.

The idea that evidence should be reviewed behind closed doors, without adversarial advocacy, is inimical to our judicial sensibilities, and it is high time such an archaic and unjust system is tossed out.