I am writing this before the grand jury decision has been announced. So the grand jury returns a no bill; that is, it refuses to indict the officer who shot Michael Brown. I personally think that is probably a fair result. I think that the death of Michael Brown is a tragedy, and was preventable, but probably not a crime, or at least a felony.

The pundits are claiming that the prosecutor in presenting the case to the grand jury, skewed the facts so that the jurors would not vote to indict. I do not accept that. Most prosecutors and any good prosecutor would lay out all the facts to the grand jury. The prosecutor’s job is to do justice, not convict or indict at any cost. I would think that a good prosecutor was chosen for this matter. The prosecutor lays out all the facts, because he knows if he skews it one way or another it will bite him, sooner or later. Sooner if he skews towards and indictment, then is forced to try the case with exculpatory facts not disclosed to the grand jury – remember George Zimmerman. Later he pays the price when the grand jury transcripts come out, or the civil suit documents come to light.

A little historical perspective on the grand jury system is in order. Back in the early 1970’s during the Vietnam war protests, the claim was that the grand jury system was flawed because a grand jury would indict anybody for anything. Now the argument is reversed, and the claim is that the system is flawed because the jurors will not indict. Those counterbalancing arguments are probably a good argument why the grand jury system is fair.

I personally am a great fan of pepper spray. You can’t take back a bullet.