Posted on 11/26/2014 1:38:31 PM PST by Jim Robinson
A number of commentators have argued tonight, with no challenge by their media interviewers, that even if the evidence was insufficient to indict Officer Darren Wilson, justice would have been better served if the grand jury had indicted anyway. That way, the reasoning goes, we could have had a public trial in the light of day where everyone could have seen that the case was insufficient. That, we are to believe, would have made it easier for the community to accept the result.
The interests of the community, however, are not the only ones in the equation, much less the most important ones. What about the interests of the suspect? Those are the interests the Constitution addresses.
The Fifth Amendment states: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury.”
The Constitution does not consider the grand jury to be a rubber stamp. It is a core protection. It stands as the buffer between the government prosecutor and the citizen-suspect; it safeguards Americans, who are presumed innocent, from being subjected to the anxiety, infamy and expense of a trial unless there is probable cause to believe they have committed a serious offense.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
The loss of affection is the next obvious one in cases like this, and the damages there can be substantial. But there would also be a discovery process and a lot of legal wrangling over just how much "affection" was involved here ... and the defense would have an army of experts ready to demonstrate that Brown's family really didn't give a sh!t about him at all.
In other words, the only leverage the Brown family has over any other parties in this case is the likelihood of a long, expensive trial.
“...The loss of affection is the next obvious one in cases like this, and the damages there can be substantial. But there would also be a discovery process and a lot of legal wrangling over just how much “affection” was involved here ... and the defense would have an army of experts ready to demonstrate that Brown’s family really didn’t give a sh!t about him at all....”
******************************************************************************************************
It is pretty clear that, prior to his death, his family (at least his mother, father and step-father) didn’t give a crap about him -— he lived with his grandmother, not that most people would know that since it had absolutely minimal coverage by the media.
Officer Wilson had a constitutional right not to be indicted in the absence of sufficient evidence. That right to individual liberty outweighs the media’s abstract claim that a public trial would serve the public interest.
Journalism does not define the public interest; the Constitution does that. The Constitution does not, BTW, establish journalists as a separate class of citizen. “The freedom of the press” is a right of the people. The freedom of the press entails both the right to print and the right to read. But IMHO the people have a right to not only a free press, we have a right to independent presses. And that, the Associated Press seeks by its monopolistic functions to deprive the people of.
“(Some) cops.”
The problem with ‘some’ is when cops play loose with rights, it always seems that those ‘few’ dirty officers are the only ones there.
That case of the cop slapping the guy over the refusal to agree to a voluntary search. Two other cops were present, neither of which seemed to have a problem with any of it. In fact, at least according to their boss, neither reported the incident until the video came out. Of course the boss could be lying about that to CYA.
A short while back, there was the cops who used fake 911 calls to make warrantless searches of homes. If only some, why is it no officer stood up to the practice?
So if it is only some, they seem to have a magical ability to find each other and have no rights honoring cops around.
I’m not going top run down the entire force because some are dirty. Most are not. Certain;y not going to run down Wilson. He has a clean record.
“Totally intimidate all LEO...”
Reminds me of the comment in that show “The Man who Killed Bin Laden” where a navy Seal was all worried that he had shot a woman. “I just shot a woman - am I in trouble? What are they going to do to me? But she just jumped right in front of the guy.”
It doesn't. The interest in adhering to some vague semblance of protocol is performed in order to "help" the legal system.
Not that the legal system deserves much respect. To the extent it won't abide by its own rules, it loses the moral high ground.
At some point, it may seek to regain lost ground.
As it does so, make no bones about it, the individual (Officer Wilson in this case) has low value. The legal system is concerned only with preservation of at least the illusion of its own legitimacy.
Very high hurdle when the claim is against the government. See qualified immunity.
How dare they cut short the breast beating and race baiting opportunities available from a jury trial.
Maybe that should be the process used for presidential impeachment.
I’m really offended by the stuff that I have read from vox.com etc. That somehow 12 people on a grand jury have a indifference to police officers so that they can get away with murder. These pathetic pieces of trash reporting are not met however with social media agreement. From what I have seen, regardless of how the media portrays it, it’s obviously that a majority of people agree that a grand jury indicitment is important.
It still does!
Disregard the Queen!
“acting purely on emotion,”
And that emotion being abject hatred for law enforcement.
Especially white law enforcement. The most obvious solution
is to have a more color coordinated police force but the
ridicule and disrespect for black officers, uncle toms, is
just as bad if not worse and acts as a deterrent.
The only logical thing to do is isolate them, protect everyone
else from them and let them wipe themselves out. You know the
Chitcago way.
Not only would a sham trial be a media circus, the race baiters Jackson, Holder, Sharpton, Obama, et al, would see to it that demonstrations, mayhem, protests and the daily news were totally consumed by the day to day proceedings in the courtroom. Just like with the Trayvon Martin case, the news business would be delighted to have a sure thing every day to report on - don't let a crisis go to waste, right? For those screaming for "justice", if they truly want it, it means that they must accept the process just completed that found no cause for indictment. Holding a trial anyway would not only waste a lot of money, it would do nothing to appease those who remain convinced of the cop's guilt regardless of the evidence. Justice is the LAST thing they want.
Except the Brown family lawyers would have absolutely no standing in any criminal trial. You sequester the jury and let the DA present the evidence. The Brown people will bring civil action but even there the grand jury is a safeguard as any witness contradicting grand jury testimony would be liable to charges of criminal perjury/
t
That wouldn't matter. My point was that they would foment turmoil in the press, and gin up demonstrations and riots. The trial would be drawn out as the DA makes his case against the officer. Would you really want an indictment and trial that would be a mockery of justice? The right thing was done, having a grand jury see all the evidence without the lawyers spinning everything.
Would that logic extend to hanging an innocent person, so long as it would make the community feel better about itself? Or make Al Sharpton richer? Or turnout minorities better during an election?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.