GOP_Decline_and_Fall
2014-11-18 00:52:43 UTC
Misuse of a Grand Jury
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-al-sharpton/misuse-of-a-grand-jury_b_6172862.html
So if the grand jury's stated role is to simply ascertain whether or
not there should be a case against the accused, then why are they
acting as if this is the trial? When did a grand jury transform into a
trial jury?
If a grand jury is hearing evidence tantamount to what they would hear
in a jury trial, then what is the point of a grand jury? In Ferguson,
there are witnesses who say Brown had his hands up when he was shot.
That should be enough probable cause to go to trial to then determine
if Officer Wilson is guilty or not.
It is at trial that he can then defend himself and his attorneys can
present their own witnesses and their own defense. In Staten Island,
the video of the chokehold is enough evidence to warrant a trial
where, again, the officers can then defend themselves. And in addition
to the tape, a City of New York medical examiner also ruled his death
a homicide.
If you or I were accused of shooting someone to death or were caught
on tape choking a person as they yelled "I can't breathe!" repeatedly,
let's not act like we wouldn't be arrested as quickly as possible.
Police should be held accountable to the same standards.
It has been months since these grand juries convened, and we are
still left waiting to see if any charges will be brought against the
accused. In the meantime, the parents of Michael Brown continue to
suffer, as do the children and wife of Eric Garner. And communities
across the country await decisions not on the officers' guilt or
innocence but on whether or not they will even go to trial.
How is that justice?
As we await both decisions, in my opinion, we're seeing a complete
misuse of a grand jury's purpose. We, the nation, are still searching
for answers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-al-sharpton/misuse-of-a-grand-jury_b_6172862.html
So if the grand jury's stated role is to simply ascertain whether or
not there should be a case against the accused, then why are they
acting as if this is the trial? When did a grand jury transform into a
trial jury?
If a grand jury is hearing evidence tantamount to what they would hear
in a jury trial, then what is the point of a grand jury? In Ferguson,
there are witnesses who say Brown had his hands up when he was shot.
That should be enough probable cause to go to trial to then determine
if Officer Wilson is guilty or not.
It is at trial that he can then defend himself and his attorneys can
present their own witnesses and their own defense. In Staten Island,
the video of the chokehold is enough evidence to warrant a trial
where, again, the officers can then defend themselves. And in addition
to the tape, a City of New York medical examiner also ruled his death
a homicide.
If you or I were accused of shooting someone to death or were caught
on tape choking a person as they yelled "I can't breathe!" repeatedly,
let's not act like we wouldn't be arrested as quickly as possible.
Police should be held accountable to the same standards.
It has been months since these grand juries convened, and we are
still left waiting to see if any charges will be brought against the
accused. In the meantime, the parents of Michael Brown continue to
suffer, as do the children and wife of Eric Garner. And communities
across the country await decisions not on the officers' guilt or
innocence but on whether or not they will even go to trial.
How is that justice?
As we await both decisions, in my opinion, we're seeing a complete
misuse of a grand jury's purpose. We, the nation, are still searching
for answers.