orcus - Their way would probably be that a guy who killed an unarmed man actually be tried for the crime. You know, to determine if it was justified and all that silliness.Why is it that the grand jury trial didn't count?
Too outrageous for the OP, apparently.
Should we bypass normal court procedure when race is a factor?
If an unarmed man is shot to death, and there is any doubt at all as to whether it was justified, there should be a criminal trial, period.
As you probably know, grand jury trials are generally just there so the prosecutor can demonstrate that he has a case. I'm also sure you know the statistics: "According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them."
So in just about EVERY fucking case that comes to them, grand juries indict. But not here. Unarmed guy shot to death, some eyewitnesses saying he had his hands up, officer admits he was unarmed. No indictment.
Why would people not be pissed about that?
"Do you think the protesters would riot if Wilson was tried and found guilty?"
I don't know. Are now getting mad about what we think people might do in an alternate reality under opposite cirumstances?