Why are people still being allowed to protest when they don't live there? It's insane to be assuming that there will be chaos, and somehow that's okay.
Not to mention that the DOJ (Holder) has threatened a bias suit against the prosecutor, who runs the grand jury, if a no-indictment comes down the tubes...
Why are people still being allowed to protest when they don't live there? It's insane to be assuming that there will be chaos, and somehow that's okay.
Uh, wow. Where to start? I suppose the beginning is the best place. This is not a democracy. It is a republic. What you are actually seeing being applied are the principles of a democracy - also known as mob rule.
As for the protests "should not have been allowed before the decision"... "Allowed"? What? We don't "allow" protests. The first amendment is a fundamental part of the Constitution. Now, that's not to say that looting or other criminal behavior should be tolerated, but they can protest whatever the hell they want as far as I'm concerned. Incitement, is also a different thing that should be dealt with. If we were actually seeing a republican form of government in action, they could protest all they want, and it wouldn't have an effect on the outcome of the deliberations. Instead, I'd not be at all surprised to see the GJ bow to the demands of the mob, trying to force it's 'democratic justice'.
"Why are people still being allowed to protest when they don't live there?"
Again, it's the first amendment. "Allow" should have nothing whatsoever to do with it, as long as they are not breaking the law.
OTOH, if they decide to really get their mob on, I say that looters should be shot on sight without hesitation.