from a friend of mine on ferguson

[Assasin]

As a former prosecutor, I am just appalled by the Ferguson grand jury decision. Only a prosecutor who has no intention of PROSECUTING a crime gets a "no bill." We jokingly say you can indict a ham sandwich but an indictment only requires probable cause - 51% - a "more likely than not" standard. So, assume everything Officer Wilson reported is fact: He and Michael Brown got into an altercation in the police vehicle. Michael Brown tried to reach for his weapon. After a struggle, Officer Wilson still has possession of his weapon and shoots a round off. No sign of any weapon on Brown. Michael Brown runs away. Even if Brown did turn around to go towards Wilson (which makes little sense since Brown KNEW he was unarmed and KNEW Wilson had a gun, Wilson KNOWS Brown has no weapon when he shoots him numerous times - front, back, who cares? To find no probable cause of a crime here, the grand jury is saying that it is more likely than not that an unarmed black male walking in the middle of the street with his buddy is a cold blooded killer . . . but not the cop shooting bullets from afar.

[Lazie]

As a former prosecutor, I am just appalled by the Ferguson grand jury decision. Only a prosecutor who has no intention of PROSECUTING a crime gets a "no bill." We jokingly say you can indict a ham sandwich but an indictment only requires probable cause - 51% - a "more likely than not" standard. So, assume everything Officer Wilson reported is fact: He and Michael Brown got into an altercation in the police vehicle. Michael Brown tried to reach for his weapon. After a struggle, Officer Wilson still has possession of his weapon and shoots a round off. No sign of any weapon on Brown. Michael Brown runs away. Even if Brown did turn around to go towards Wilson (which makes little sense since Brown KNEW he was unarmed and KNEW Wilson had a gun, Wilson KNOWS Brown has no weapon when he shoots him numerous times - front, back, who cares? To find no probable cause of a crime here, the grand jury is saying that it is more likely than not that an unarmed black male walking in the middle of the street with his buddy is a cold blooded killer . . . but not the cop shooting bullets from afar.

I do not see why people getting upset now. Weren't we all aware that Wilson was allowed to testify in front of the grand jury? When has that ever happened? He wasn't even cross examined based on his testimony .... so what other outcome would there be?