At your local pub, there are many discussions…
The purpose of a Grand Jury in the United States is to decide whether a crime May have taken place. It seems a shitty bigot of an ADA decided to present the results in a highly irregular manor to this Grand Jury in the Michael Brown case. And they decided not to indict.
So… let’s bring this to its lowest level. An unarmed teenager was shot dead in the street. And this Grand Jury decided that there was no possible way a crime was committed.
As far as I can tell, the Grand Jury’s job is to determine whether a crime may have been committed. An unarmed teenager shot dead in the street seems to be pretty clear evidence that a crime may have been committed.
It is not the Grand Jury’s job to decide definitively whether a crime was committed, and it is also not the Grand Jury’s job to decide guilt or innocence of those accused of a crime.
If the people of a community cannot even get a full trial when an unarmed member of said community is shot dead in the street, what alternative do they have? If the system doesn’t give you justice, how can anyone suggest that working within the system is correct course of action?
One of the best things I have read during this whole mess is the suggestion about what MLK would say, and the answer that the non-violent protest loving MLK was shot dead by a white guy.
The Grand Jury decision was a travesty of justice.
Boteveg's Pub 