Postponing the riots, in other words. Intimidating the jurors as well.
This kind of scenario happens occasionally in New York City when police officers kill someone in a case that gets a lot of bad publicity.
1. The prosecutor files a murder charge against the police officer.
2. The police officer opts for a trial before a judge instead of a jury.
3. The judge -- who decides the case based only on the facts and on a strict application of the law -- hands down an acquittal.
In most cases, the same @ssholes who clamored for a murder charge at the beginning of the case often criticize the prosecutor for filing such a serious charge in the first place. This "change of heart" usually happens about two-thirds of the way through the trial, when it becomes obvious to anyone who knows anything about the case that there's no way in hell a murder charge is going to stand up under any legal scrutiny.
There was only ONE WITNESS to come forward the night of the act. He saw the thug on top of the security guard trying to bash his head in the ground.
Anymore “witnesses” to the crime that came forward days or even weeks later are LYING.
Only one witness to the act and that person said the thug was the culprit. This is purely political because if the racebaiters are not pleased with the outcome they will loot and burn everything in sight.
Judge Al Sharpton residing.