Oh, for crying out loud. The police officer committed no crime. His constitutional rights are guaranteed and should not be trampled!
No disagreement, sir. I was merely noting that in his case not standing trial is not going to shield him from the infamy, etc. mentioned as the reasons for requiring a grand jury indictment before trial.
IOW, in his case, as in Zimmerman’s, a very large percentage of the population, and almost all of the media, have already convicted him anyway.
One their designed purposes was to prevent street justice, riots and thus preserve the city-state republic.
When a populace becomes incensed, blind with rage stoked by demagogues over a perceived crime, the grand jury convenes to calmly address the street accusations.
“Oh, for crying out loud. The police officer committed no crime. His constitutional rights are guaranteed and should not be trampled!”
Agreed, although it is ironic. Cops certainly have no issue with trampling other people’s constitutional rights.
The real danger of ignoring this right, is it opens the door to doing it for everyone. An attack on one man’s rights, is an attack on EVERYONE’S rights.