Cop in Eric Garner's death not indicted

[ag]

It's not different than a comedian telling a joke so funny someone laughs until they have a heart attack. It's sad, but it's not the fault of the comedian who told the joke.

get the fuck out

I think we all can agree that no conversation is possible with somebody, who, in a written post, with all the time in the world available to think, could deliberately write something like this. If at any time in the future I comment on anything Reaganfan says on any topic, please kick me.

This is beyond revolting. Honestly, I cannot believe that somebody could write this. Such utter lack of anything resembling human morality...

[ag]

We seem to forget, why police is there. They are not on the streets to terrorize the public with random murders.  If they were not "right" most of the time, they would have been a terrorist corporation, mere membership in which would have been grounds for a lengthy prison term. As it is, not only it is not a criminal offense to be a policeman, they are paid by the public and are defended by law as no other group. That, kind of, assumes they are doing the right thing a lot more than 90% of the time: the assumption that seems, at best, questionable.

[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.

[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.