[JoeRedskin]

Again, the police force in Ferguson was not on trial, that's not how it works - guilt by association is not acceptable for anyone. Whether the suspect is a policeman or a minority, you look at the facts of the incident, and only those facts, when deciding to charge someone with a crime. We don't put people on trial and at risk of their liberty b/c of their reputation - or the reputation of those with whom they are associated. Rather, the American justice/judicial system is based on the principle that you can only be tried for the specific crime being alleged.

The prosecutor has a lot of control in the grand jury. He could have gamed the system and gotten an indictment by withholding some evidence or highlighting others. I don't know a whole lot about the practice but I believe prosecutors normally present minimal evidence - just enough to get an indictment. Here, the prosecutor presented a lot of evidence to the GJ both exculpatory and not so. You would have to talk to a criminal prosecutor to find out just how outside the norm such a procedure is, if at all.

At the same time, unlike in a trial, the jurors get to examine witnesses directly and can essentially say "Is that all you have?" Again, I believe the G. Jurors themselves can request subpoenas and more evidence. Ultimately, it is their call.

The issue of Ferguson's police force and racial profiling is a separate matter. There are mechanisms to appeal to State and Federal authorities for review. I believe that some of those actions are in progress. While police must have authority to enforce the law and society has to buy into that for them to be effective, abuse of authority should be severely punished and I don't trust police dept.'s to police their own.

[The reason the punishment must be severe is b/c of the social contract with law enforcement and is the converse of why those who attack law enforcement officers should also be severely punished: "We give you authority to use force against us so that we may have safety in our daily lives. Further, because you place yourself in harm's way for us, we have your back. Because an assault on an officer of the law is an assault on all of us, we will make sure that those who attack or attempt to harm you, as you protect us, are punished to a greater extent than if they attacked one of us directly. In return, you promise not to abuse either the authority given or the protection provided. If you do, we will hold you to the same harsh standards as we hold those who would attempt to undermine the rule of law by attacking you."]

Given the scenes of mob criminality last night, and the distrust of the police force, however, I am not sure how the rule of law will ever be reestablished in that town. It is a sad state when the citizenry can't/won't trust those entrusted to enforce the rule of law because those in authority have abused their authority. I suspect Ferguson is in for a long, dark night of repression and lawlessness (symbolically speaking that is).

One final thought - A recurrent theme is that a black officer shooting an unarmed white guy would be in jail pronto. You can believe what you wish, my belief differs. I suggest to you that, in this case - if Wilson were black and Brown were white, Ferguson's Thin Blue Line would have rallied around the officer just as they did here and the shooting would have made the local news - but not a blip anywhere else - and when the GJ inevitably chose not to indict the black officer not a single riot would have ensued.

In this case, Brown assaulted an officer, ignored his lawful commands, and charged at him. The mob saw one thing, the forensics evidenced another. The "no indictment" decision was right In this case, regardless of: (1) the race of the cop or the dead teen; (2) whether or not Wilson was a sketchy cop; or (3) whether or not the Ferguson PD was a sketchy unit.

Racial hatred/suspicion runs so deep in this country - especially amongst the lower social classes of both whites and blacks. Just don't know if it will ever get better.