Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: ***Official*** Ferguson Grand Jury Decision Thread [View all]displacedtexan
(15,696 posts)35. KRON4 News in San Francisco covered that issue Saturday morning.
Our local legal/political analyst said that prosecuters usually just present the few most damning bits of evidance to a grand jury; hence, the ham sandwich situation. However, evidently this prosecuter presented every single iota of "evidence," both bad and good for the officer, which probably caused the jurors to split on their opinions of each bit of evidence.
This sort of makes sense to me when I consider how freakin' long this GJ is taking.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
83 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
That's what I think too. I know none are supposed to know, but on something this big I bet
RKP5637
Nov 2014
#39
Okay folks. Why don't we wait for the Grand Jury decision before we set our hair on fire!!
longship
Nov 2014
#25
What I don't understand is, I thought you could basically indict a ham sandwich. I don't necessarily
stevenleser
Nov 2014
#28
they ran this one very differently- allowed leaks, allowed jurors to read the papers, did not
bettyellen
Nov 2014
#61
The cops there always look/act like they are looking for any excuse they can to incite
RKP5637
Nov 2014
#43
Frankly, I think your last sentence is probably true for many, they just want to
RKP5637
Nov 2014
#47
Watched for a bit but it is very confusing. Of course they are angry - they should be but as to what
jwirr
Nov 2014
#72
This is such an incredible historical moment. I don't think the status can now remain quo.
nolabear
Nov 2014
#56
And there is no bill? You cannot kill someone in anger simply because you are a cop. But maybe
jwirr
Nov 2014
#75
Good. Hold back and get organized. Then all of you sit down wherever you are and ignore the cops.
jwirr
Nov 2014
#77
They need to listen even if he is a cop. Organize a sit in. Scream yell swear. Get it out but do not
jwirr
Nov 2014
#78
He also said that conflicting evidence was the reason they did not indict. I am confused! I thought
jwirr
Nov 2014
#80
I'm with you. That's what I thought. A trial, with cross examination, is supposed to help sort
stevenleser
Nov 2014
#82