• James Bradbury

    Great Article !! What we are witnessing here is another Smoke and mirrors attempt by a prosecutor to
    avoid having to bring a potential criminal to trial, He, like in the Michael Brown case is intentionally trying
    to muddy the waters so he can convince the Grand Jury to render a ” No True Bill” in favor of the Officer
    and potentially letting another murderer off the hook, If this case goes to court the Officer will have his
    attorney plead his case and let justice prevail. It’s obvious that this Prosecutor knows the officer screwed
    up and wants to cover for him, There’s an even bigger Problem here, We keep trying to justify why Police
    and the likes of George Zimmerman are Justified by killing other people rather than trying to prevent the
    future killings, There are two types of people in the world, Those who are part of the problem and those
    who are part of the solution, It’s obvious here which one this prosecutor is, Until we address the real
    problem, The one sided political justice system we have in place , we’ll continue to watch these cases
    be tainted by the same people we trust to protect us, We have two criminal justice systems in America,
    One for the average citizen and one for the Police, Politicians & 1% that are well connected, Wow, now
    that’s true Justice, Don’t be fooled by these bought experts, They are paid to do what the Prosecutor
    paid them to do or he wouldn’t have released them, Jimmy B.

  • Bill Smith 999935

    I’m sure the grand jury will acquit the cop. The prosecutor would have
    no chance of convicting him at a jury trial on any criminal charges, so
    he won’t press too hard for an indictment when presenting evidence.

    • James Bradbury

      It’s not the Grand Jury’s job to acquit anybody, It’s the prosecutors job to seek justice for the victim and his family ,The old saying goes like this, A prosecutor can indict a “Ham Sandwich” if he want’s to , This prosecutor is not God, Another judge already said there is enough evidence here to indict the officer, We as the public have the right to demand a trial to see if the officer is guilty or
      not. How do we know that the Prosecutor is presenting all the evidence, In the Michael Brown case
      the Prosecutor allowed witnesses that weren’t even there to testify , How is that justice, that is
      abstraction of justice !!! , Secrecy is no way to run a free society, A 12 year old boy is dead and
      it was caught on video, The Cop said he warned the kid 3 times, The video shows the officer
      to be a liar, If he’s telling the truth, let an open and transparent trial decide, Not a prosecutor that
      works with the police for a living, It’s an undistributed fact prosecutors are biased , Recently, in
      New York they haven’t taken that relationship off the table, Not because it was unfair but because
      it was obvious to the general public that favoritism was apparent, Justice is for everybody , not
      just for White people, And I’m a White Dude, This corrupt system of secrecy has to stop, One day
      we might be the next victim, I don’t want that for your family or mine, Thank you, Jimmy B.

  • Re: “Oh my God – they shot a little boy.” Who’s being quoted?

  • Tim Sebold

    This “article” is sheer pabulum. The fact that an assessment of an unrelated shooting was deemed by a separate entity to be “overly protective of law enforcement” does not constitute a basis for a claim of bias no the part of Crawford. Attorneys argue points of law all the time, it doesn’t mean they are “biased’, it means they have an interpretation of the law that must be settled. The absolute rock-bottom fact of the matter is that under the standard recognized by SCOTUS in Graham v. Connor, the shooting of Tamir Rice was reasonable, and is thus Constitutional. The idea that “justice” is achieved by finding “experts” that pander to the emotional reactions of the grieving and ignorant-of-the-law relatives of the decedent is just plain stupid. By law and common sense, it is objectively reasonable to fire on someone who has been reportedly threatening others with an ostensibly loaded gun and who makes a furtive grab for it when challenged.

    • James Bradbury

      Rubbish !!! This prosecutor doesn’t need to get any so called experts to give any opinions,
      This action was completely unnecessary, Just like in the Michael Brown case this prosecutor
      is shrugging of his duty by trying not to be objective. He doesn’t want to bring charges against
      any police officers, The fact that this prosecutor has taken almost a year to do something he
      could of done ten months ago is pathetic, This is a tragic example of Prosecutors wiggling out
      of doing their job, This is nothing new, It’s really pathetic, It’s obvious no indictment is coming,
      that was his original decision over ten months ago, The man is a coward, Thank you, Jimmy b.