@Maddog:where I placed the arrows. Thanks!

That still doesn't support your argument. And why post all of that if only a small part is what you thinks validates your point. That case was brought before the grand jury because of political pressure and appeasement of the rioters. That cannot be the basis of how courts rule, especially when the mantras of "justice for Mike Brown" and "hands up, don't shoot" are false narratives. Those who demanded "justice" were only willing to accept one outcome, regardless of the facts. "Hands up, don't shoot"was debunked by every eye witness except the one who was with Brown when he robbed that convenience store. Additionally, Darren Wilson testified before the grand jury, which he had no Constitutional obligation to do because whatever he said would have been used against him as evidence had there been an indictment. It was very risky, and most defense attorneys will advise their clients against testifying at their trials, let alone when evidence is being gathered. For you to cite a law professor also is unimpressive. Being a law professor means unbiased? No. In fact, professors are often extremely biased. Again, just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean you are right.

"A jury consists of 12 persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer."


but its what we have,,,,


better than lynch mobs but still room for improvement

Well whether I'm right or wrong,I'm still all for making adjustment How ever big or small to our legal system.

The system isn't perfect. No system can be as long as humans are involved. But it works more than it doesn't. I rarely agree with MsHarmony, but her point is right. Without juries examining the evidence, we can either have a single judge (which is an option in our system) or a mob determine a defendant's fate. I would much prefer to face 12 strangers, randomly selected or not, than the other possibilities.

I agree! :-)

Isn't it up to the prosecuting and defence lawyers to make their case in front of the jurors........how is it the jurors fault if they can only make a decision on what is presented in front of them? The attorneys have the onus on them to make their case to the jury........the jury has to come to a verdict based on what has been presented as evidence and that verdict is based on whether there is any reasonable doubt. The lawyers, prosecuting and defence, go through a selection process to make up the 12 person jury....it may be a random selection, but ultimately the lawyers make the decision who the jury members are.