"Conservatives Join Outrage over Grand Jury Decision" - HUFFINGTON POST

[pathansen]

See:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/eric-garner-conservatives-chokehold_n_6264886.html

"This is one of those moments where left and right could unite"

Apparently, this was because they could see an actual video what was going on. This man was obviously posing no threat to anyone and there were no witnesses giving conflicting testimony.

[BeyondGeography]

1. On top of it all, Garner was offering people a tax-free product

That pretty much seals the deal for the cons.

In fairness,the people quoted here do have a real problem with the outcome, and it's good to see. I think part of it comes from the vociferousness with which they defended Darren Wilson and their desire to appear reasonable a mere one week later. They're just not up for Round 2 yet, but they will be, and they will use their reactions here as currency when the time comes.

[pathansen]

2. I think the primary difference was seeing an actual video. Videos don't lie.

[reflection]

5. Of course, when Rodney King got beat on video

the RWers I knew were still saying stupid shit like "we don't know exactly what happened, or what led up to it" Uh yeah, we do, they beat the man within an inch of his life because they were pissed.

Hopefully we're getting to the point where videos don't lie, but I did hear more than a few knuckleheads say "he was resisting arrest!" BS. That was as much resistance as my infant daughter used to put up as I would pry a plastic toy out her hand when it was time for bed. Pathetic.

[True Blue Door]

3. I thought cancervatives were angry because the GJ wasn't indicting Garner pothumously

for getting in the officer's way.

[geek tragedy]

4. What happened was so wrong for so many reasons

that everyone's reasons are correct.

Garner was killed by a bunch of thugs for dodging taxes.

[Liberal_in_LA]

7. even 50% of the free republic folks feel the cop should have been charged

[MisterP]

8. more lefty Dems (the 80% of Dem voters, and 70% indeps--and 50% Pubs, it turns out)

will see this as an opportunity for a "tactical alliance"--a contingent broad front on this single issue where nobody gives up their LW goals

the conservadems will blast this as "far left and far right working together," while they push policies that Bush would've vetoed as too RW and egg the GOP to go further right, in the name of "the big tent"

[pathansen]

9. So what is going on??

[Faryn Balyncd]

10. Krauthammer is 100% WRONG about Grand Juries & double jeopardy :

It is indeed admirable that Charles Krauthammer views the failure to indict as "totally incomprehensible" and wrong, but Krauthammer is dead wrong about Grand Juries and double jeopardy:

Fox News syndicated columnist and contributor Charles Krauthammer said the grand jury’s decision to not indict was "totally incomprehensible."

"I think anybody who looks at the video would think this was the wrong judgment," Krauthammer said. "The problem is in our system, you don’t have double jeopardy," adding, "If a grand jury makes a mistake, that the way it is."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/eric-garner-conservatives-chokehold_n_6264886.html

If a grand jury fails to indict, another grand jury can be asked to decide whether it will indict. Since an indictment is not a charge, there is no double jeopardy issue barring reconsideration by a second grand jury . . . the only thing that would effectively prevent that would be if the statute of limitations on the offenses at issue had run in the interim.

http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/feedback/feedba68.htm

Grand juries and double jeopardy

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not attach in a grand jury proceeding, or bar a grand jury from returning an indictment when a prior grand jury has refused to do so.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause#Grand_juries_and_double_jeopardy