Maybe prelims to weed out specific details and presentation of facts in a way that would get the officer acquitted.
I’m neither a lawyer nor a police officer. But I read this as a sign that the evidence speaks for itself.
They know they don’t have a case and are shirking their responsibilities?
“”” evidence against the police officer who shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown last month””””
Congratulations. This is the first story I have ever read where St. Michael was not called...an unarmed teen.
Hi 2ndDivisionVet,
Thanks for posting this article.
I’m curious, have you read/heard anything about toxicology? I remember that it was to be 4-6 weeks. It’s been a little over 4 at this time.
Gwjack
Blank check for a fishing expedition to find something, ANYTHING, for an indictment.
This seems to a little faster FBI investigation than Lois Lerner.
Does the strong arm robbery for the Swisher Sweets earlier that day count as relevant?
Prosecutor to grand jury. Come on guys, help me out here. Get creative. Surely you can find something. And besides, Holder told me if I can’t come up with charges, my a$$ is canned.
"How can we railroad this white pig" is what they're thinking.
This should never go to trial.
I presume the grand jury has seen the broken eye socket photo of the officer. A closed fist can be a lethal weapon.
Referring to the deceased as Mike-Mike, the unarmed teen, shows a predisposition to support an agenda rather than any effort to learn or report the truth.
Assuming that the reports of the cop having suffered serious injuries in the encounter and the reports of the GG having had a serious juvenile record are true will evidence of these facts be presented to the Grand Jury? Or will Attorney Corporal Holder’s people “suggest” that it not be handed over?
TRANSLATION: They got nothin’ but they have to come up with something and they’re hoping a juror can make something up they can use.
The grand jury was already seated. They can’t help to have heard at least some of the news reports and eyewitness accounts. Let’s see if the witnesses tell the exact same stories when they’re under oath.
Yes. I think I've got it.
Holder and the Feds were meddling in all kinds of decisions about what to present and what to hold back.
A point came at which the locals got sick of it and just said "hey, you know what? let's just present everything, and let the grand jury sort it out."
At which point the feds backed away. What could they say?
The decision might rest on when they believe it better to have more rioting: now (after the Grand Jury does not indict) or later (when the evidence clearly exonerates the cop).
I rather think that by handling the case in an irregular manner, they are angling for a mistrial. I’m anything but a jurist, but something is more than strange here.