GJ and critical analysis

Can they, do they have the right, the ability to think for themselves?

From my perspective, no one on the two most prominent GJ's making a decision on whether murder was committed by police officers thought for themselves. No critical analysis, no nothing. In one they just followed the DA's path of least resistance, in another they totally disregarded video evidence of police brutality and culpability in the death by chokehold. The two DA's least path of resistance is found in ferguson to be the DA's defense of wilson in his obvious attempt at painting Michael Browns murder as "proper police procedure", a "good shoot" if you will, a term I have seen many times on this site recently. The Staten Island GJ had to have been instructed not to view the recorded video of Garners death as proof of murder, evidently.

Not one of these GJ'ers questioned improper procedure by the DA in presenting evidence in Wilson favor, only? In essence defending wilson. Especially obvious in the transcripts of ferguson GJ proceedings. In another video evidence must have been deemed irrelevant.

No one on the GJ knew the proper procedure of the purpose of a GJ and the purpose of a DA in those procedures?

No one questioned whether the evidence was from the day of incident or whether the evidence was 'found' and cataloged in a private setting with all interested party's present??

After all wilson was roaming around quite a while and touching Michael's body after he had killed him and Michael was lying in the street bleeding.

These, to me, are important questions to explore in a GJ setting.

Now that the GJ participants have access to the whole case, why is there not someone speaking up about this obvious travesty. I know they are probably sworn to secrecy, but this IS an extraordinary case in the sense of the publicity and outrage it has generated and they can see what we all have seen. My guess is just like Staten Island they are sure in their affirmation that black life is not worthy of fair and impartial hearings.

No GJer would be sure of the law after it was purposefully muddied by the introduction of a statute that had been struck down in 1986 as unconstitutional. No GJ demanded an answer to the question surrounding the introduction of this 'tainted', unconstitutional evidence of police right to kill. And no one pursued when the DA in answer to one important query as to why this statute had been introduced when the DA's office knew it had been struck down by SCOTUS. The DA dismissed the obviously obfuscatory nature of the introduction of this statute by saying, "Let's not have a law class". I'm paraphrasing I'm sure. But the gist is true. This was the law on trial and the law lost.

They found wilson not indictable at the DA's behest and because of the DA's strident defense of wilson. Not because the evidence was not there in plain sight in the dismissed witness testimony, nor did they question whether there was a the chance that because no objective person or persons were present at collecting and cataloging evidence in this case that did not fit the DA's defense of wilson could that evidence have been tampered with? Not one is willing to come out and admit the sham this procedure was and how it was guided and cherry picked evidence presented in a way to exonerate wilson.

Can we start demanding this whole GJ procedure be open to public scrutiny, as it takes place, and possibly, as I saw in another post earlier today, eradicate this system and start judging the evidence in an open court, with judge, to see if indictment and trial for murders such as this is merited?