I'm disappointed in the Fergeson Grand Jury decision. It is hard to believe that they took over 3 months to review the evidence. Most grand juries are much quicker. This NY Times article attempted to summarize the proceedings. Amid Conflicting Accounts, Trusting the Officer - NYTimes.com. Yes, it is possible that the NY Times took a "liberal" side on this situation. However now the public has the testimony and we can read it ourselves and make our own decisions. There seems to be a lot that wasn't questioned in Wilson's testimony, however.
Yes, there is a LOT of evidence: See this link -- but I think there wasn't enough for 3-1/2 months of delay. In most cases the "Prosecutor" prosecutes in a Grand Jury proceeding. This one was unique in that the prosecutor apparently wanted to not push the jury towards indictment. I think the public needed Wilson to be tried by a jury of his peers.
Somehow, I have the feeling that a prosecutor in this type of situation has a built-in conflict of interest. If a prosecutor doesn't "go easy" on a police officer, the other officers may not support that prosecutor in other trials. It seems that the overall process of handling a situation like this needs to be changed. Maybe an outside Federal prosecutor should be involved when a grand jury is considering charges against a police officer.
No comments:
Post a Comment