htown1980: I could say that it is because I am a lawyer, but that's not the reason, the real reason is that it is obvious that there was sufficient evidence to support a charge. The prosecution may ultimately not have been successful but it is not the grand jury's job to decide that. The grand jury made a mistake. The prosecution did not do their job. It's fine if you don't understand that. There is a serious lack of accountability in the US police force and this case is, sadly, one of many many examples that have come up this year. It's a real shame that their are so many US citizens who don't have a problem with that, but it's your country, good luck to you.
SeduceMePlz: And once again you make dubious claims without evidence or support while ignoring specific questions about those assertions. (Again, what evidence?) It's fine if you can't admit to being mistaken and allowing ideology rather than facts to influence your opinion, but I'm not going to waste any more of my time 'discussing' it with you in that case.
The problem is that, from what I understand, the standard for indictment is probable cause that the accused has committed a crime; affirmative defenses, such as whether the defendant was justified (i.e. they used legally justified self defense or the officer exercised lawful deadly force to stop a fleeing felon who presented a danger to the community) are irrelevant, as they do not disprove the prima facie elements. Probable cause in and of itself is a very low standard, below the 99.9% burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt" (which the prosecution must satisfy at trial) and the 50-50 of "preponderance of the evidence"; it is so low that it has led to the saying that a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich. If an indictment can't be returned, then the evidence either is exceptionally lacking when it comes to showing the prima facie elements of the crime, or the jury simply didn't do their job properly.
Here, there was ample evidence that the officer shot the victim. There is probable cause that the prima facie elements of the crime for murder in the second degree (at the highest, on my reading) and all lower forms of homicide are met, since the actus reus is not apparently in dispute (the cop shot him and killed him), and the mens rea of malice aforethought is likely satisfied due to the cop using deadly force in a manner that he either intended to kill (intent) or substantially knew would result in death of the victim (knowledge); since intent and/or knowledge are likely present by the low standard of probable cause, all lower forms of mens rea (recklessness and criminal negligence) would also be satisfied, which would allow for a grand jury to indict for the lesser offenses of manslaughter and criminal negligence.
The grand jury refusing to indict only makes sense if the grand jury chose to not indict based on the idea that the officer acted in self defense, and therefor should not be punished. However. as I mentioned earlier, affirmative defenses are, as best as I can tell, irrelevant in determining if an indictment should be issued under the standard, as it does not speak to whether a crime was not committed, only whether a crime that has occurred should not be punished under a theory of justification (i.e. defense) or excuse. Whether the defendant was justified is something that a defense attorney would need to prove at trial, usually by a preponderance of the evidence or by clear and convincing evidence. All that is relevant for an indictment is whether there is probable cause that a crime, however justified it might have been, was committed.
