No, although I could see why it would seem confusing. Let me try a different way.Cerin wrote:Voronwë, I'm having some trouble understanding the distinctions you made in your post above. The first thing I need to know is, in the statement below, should that last line read: 'rather than determining whether there was sufficient evidence that a jury could use to conclude that he did.' (rather than, 'did not'.)
There was a lot of different evidence submitted to the grand jury. Some of it presumably supported the idea that Officer Wilson had a reasonable basis for shooting Mr. Brown. Some it presumably supported the idea that Officer Wilson did not have a reasonable basis for shooting Mr. Brown. Mr. McCulloch seemed to be implying that the grand jury had weighed the evidence and determined that the evidence that Officer Wilson did have a reasonable basis for shooting Mr. Brown was more credible than the evidence that he did not have a reasonable basis to shoot him, and that therefore he should not be charged with a crime. However, that should not have been their job to weigh the evidence. Their job should have been to determine whether there was sufficient evidence that, if accepted, would lead to the conclusion that Officer Wilson did not have a reasonable basis to shoot Mr. Brown, regardless of what their own opinion was on the matter. It appears that they acted more like a jury in a trial than a grand jury. And by most accounts the prosecutor acted more like a defense attorney for the potential defendant, rather than as a prosecutor.