Charles Barkley is WRONG about the Grand Jury Decision!

JUST SAY'n: Charles Barkley had a lot to say about Ferguson, Missouri in a recent interview with a local Philadelphia radio station. This is an adopted post of mine in response to a question posed on Facebook about those comments. .

Charles had two messages in that article, one I agreed with, the other I didn't. I agreed that there were Blacks who should not have been looting and that the media focused on those and never mentioned the demonstrators who stopped looters from destroying people's businesses. I did not agree with his statements about the grand jury decision because there have been NUMEROUS errors in the entire process, errors that have been pointed out by people with more qualifications to speak authoritatively on the subject than Charles. He stated his opinion, which means squat.

Supreme Court Justice Scalia(conservative) said that it's not the role of a grand jury to determine guilt or innocence in a case but only to determine if the prosecutor has enough evidence to go to trial, therefore, neither in England or the United States has it ever been thought that a suspect would have the "right" to testify before the grand jury. In this case Wilson testified for 2(1 1/2) days. He also said that the Prosecutor presented evidence that would give the grand jury cause to NOT indict Wilson and THAT was not his function as prosecutor, in essence he didn't want Wilson to be tried. The prosecutor also presented to the grand jury that he could not find any evidence that Wilson did not act in self defense, nor that he did not use excessive force. Plainly stated, he BS ed the grand jury and assumed the posture of a defense attorney. The prosecutor DID NOT present ANY of SEVERAL witnesses who stated that Wilson DID NOT act in self defense and he should have done so, and it probably would have impacted the decision to NOT INDICT. And it is HIGHLY UNCOMMON for a prosecutor and grand jury to NOT INDICT and had ALL evidence been presented they could have returned an indictment in days rather than in months. Furthermore, NO indictment by a grand jury does not restrict a prosecutor from presenting his EVIDENCE to a judge and going to trial ANYWAY. This prosecutor...didn't do his job. It's clear that the grand jury process was skewed in Wilson's favor as evidenced by the Assistant DA giving the Grand Jury an interpretation of the law that was struck down by the Supreme court in 1985 and refused to clarify for grand jury members which part was outdated when later asked and told them not to worry about whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over Missouri law stating (this isn't a law class). Charles obviously did not speak with an understanding of these revelations. JUST SAY'n!