Originally posted by Time Immemorial
From this I take it you have no idea how our country's laws work.Grand Jury indicts off of probable cause.
Then it goes to a trial.
As he was not found to have probbable cause there was no reason to go to trial.
Comparing this to Zimmerman trial is simply not understanding the laws of the constitution of the United States of America.
Do you understand?
I know what you're trying to say and the pedants will probably ***** and moan about the inaccuracies in your post so I'll clear them up, now:
It was determined that there was not enough probable cause to go to a trial (jury trial, sometimes). Probable cause refers to the potential criminal case, not necessarily to the defendant. Basically, a prosecutor obtains, "enough probable cause" to proceed with an official criminal prosecution. This was not found in this case by the grand jury as there was ample evidence to show that all 4 potential criminal charges would not stick.
Yes, the comparison with Zimmerman is not a good one. There was some ambiguity regarding that Zimmerman case as the "Stand Your Ground" law was making it difficult to determine if Zimmerman should get set free or not. The forensic evidence was clear enough to support, roughly, what Zimmerman was saying and what others were saying. That was not what was disputed in the Zimmers case. What was disputed is if he had legal justification to shoot Martin. Sure, there were lots of disputations going on with the Zimmerman case on whether or not Martin beat the shit out of Zimmerman (he did...and I think Zimmerman deserved his ass kicked and Martin did not deserve to die), but they determined it did not break the law in a jury trial. They got the indictment for the Zimmerman case because there was too much interpretation on the law.
In this case, they just needed to collect enough evidence for a grand jury hearing to see if there was any criminal activity from Wilson. Based on the evidence even we have, the evidence much more closely fits Wilson's story than some of the contradicting eye-witnesses. It was probably much easier for the grand jury in this case to determine there's nothing that can stick. The grand jury did their job: prevented a shitty charge from going to jury trial so that it doesn't waste time and resources on an un-win-able case for the "state", as it were. That's pretty much the purpose of a grand jury: stop shitty cases or malicious cases from going through the whole legal process.
To summarize, the George Zimmerman Jury Trial is not comparable to the Wilson Grand Jury hearing. The cases were very much different.
Edit - Also, I'd like to point out that I said I was on the fence about the Wilson stuff but, as time and more evidence has come out, since Wilson's story seems to be strongly supported by the evidence, I no longer consider myself a fence sitter. I think Wilson could have handled the situation better and he probably should not work as a cop for the rest of his life but I do not think he did anything criminal.