Cop in Eric Garner's death not indicted

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

In that case it ran the risk of backfiring if the jury felt strongly like they needed to indict him for something. 

Considering that the grand jury was drawn from Staten Island residents with some disqualified by the prosecutor, he was surely certain this was no risk.

that doesn't follow.

When an experienced prosecutor does not want to indict, he, in all likelihood, knows how to make sure there is no indictment. We may be safe in assuming that this guy knew what he was doing.

I'm honestly not interested in a deterministic black box response to this question.

[Smash255]

In that case it ran the risk of backfiring if the jury felt strongly like they needed to indict him for something. 

Considering that the grand jury was drawn from Staten Island residents with some disqualified by the prosecutor, he was surely certain this was no risk.

that doesn't follow.

When an experienced prosecutor does not want to indict, he, in all likelihood, knows how to make sure there is no indictment. We may be safe in assuming that this guy knew what he was doing.

I'm honestly not interested in a deterministic black box response to this question.

When you leave off the most obvious and easiest to prove charge as a potential option for the Grand Jury, it's hard to think otherwise.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

In that case it ran the risk of backfiring if the jury felt strongly like they needed to indict him for something. 

Considering that the grand jury was drawn from Staten Island residents with some disqualified by the prosecutor, he was surely certain this was no risk.

that doesn't follow.

When an experienced prosecutor does not want to indict, he, in all likelihood, knows how to make sure there is no indictment. We may be safe in assuming that this guy knew what he was doing.

I'm honestly not interested in a deterministic black box response to this question.

When you leave off the most obvious and easiest to prove charge as a potential option for the Grand Jury, it's hard to think otherwise.

Otherwise than what?  He can stack the deck in favor of no indictment, that doesn't mean he can guarantee it.

[Smash255]

In that case it ran the risk of backfiring if the jury felt strongly like they needed to indict him for something. 

Considering that the grand jury was drawn from Staten Island residents with some disqualified by the prosecutor, he was surely certain this was no risk.

that doesn't follow.

When an experienced prosecutor does not want to indict, he, in all likelihood, knows how to make sure there is no indictment. We may be safe in assuming that this guy knew what he was doing.

I'm honestly not interested in a deterministic black box response to this question.

When you leave off the most obvious and easiest to prove charge as a potential option for the Grand Jury, it's hard to think otherwise.

Otherwise than what?  He can stack the deck in favor of no indictment, that doesn't mean he can guarantee it.

Guarantee it? Perhaps not, but he can certainly stack the deck in what charges he makes available and how the case is tried.  The fact that Donovan left off the most obvious charge speaks volumes of his intentions.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

In that case it ran the risk of backfiring if the jury felt strongly like they needed to indict him for something. 

Considering that the grand jury was drawn from Staten Island residents with some disqualified by the prosecutor, he was surely certain this was no risk.

that doesn't follow.

When an experienced prosecutor does not want to indict, he, in all likelihood, knows how to make sure there is no indictment. We may be safe in assuming that this guy knew what he was doing.

I'm honestly not interested in a deterministic black box response to this question.

When you leave off the most obvious and easiest to prove charge as a potential option for the Grand Jury, it's hard to think otherwise.

Otherwise than what?  He can stack the deck in favor of no indictment, that doesn't mean he can guarantee it.

I think the jurors know exactly what hte prosecution expects......and if he tanks the case I think they'll get that and not indict.

[ag]

In that case it ran the risk of backfiring if the jury felt strongly like they needed to indict him for something.  

Considering that the grand jury was drawn from Staten Island residents with some disqualified by the prosecutor, he was surely certain this was no risk.

that doesn't follow.

When an experienced prosecutor does not want to indict, he, in all likelihood, knows how to make sure there is no indictment. We may be safe in assuming that this guy knew what he was doing.

I'm honestly not interested in a deterministic black box response to this question.

When you leave off the most obvious and easiest to prove charge as a potential option for the Grand Jury, it's hard to think otherwise.

Otherwise than what?  He can stack the deck in favor of no indictment, that doesn't mean he can guarantee it.

Sure. No guarantees there. Just a very definite expectation, which almost never goes wrong.

Also, he can pretty much guarantee that if an indictment comes out which he does not want, he will do a crappy enough job of supporting it in a trial, so that prosecution fails. And the grand jury knows this.