No Ham Sandwich

One thing is certain in the Grand Jury decision in Ferguson, MO. Darren Wilson is no ham sandwich.

Of course, I’m referring the the conventional wisdom that a Prosecutor can lead a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. That is to say, Prosecutors, having full authority to present whatever evidence they want without rebuttal, can almost always get a true bill, an indictment, against anyone they believe should be indicted. Under a Prosecutor’s leadership, Grand Juries seldom, if ever, fail to return a true bill. Ferguson’s Prosecutor obviously did not want Officer Wilson indicted and knowing that all the evidence, with its conflicting testimonies, would lead the Grand Jury to an ambiguous decision, preferred ambiguity to truth. That the Ferguson Prosecutor did not filter and manipulate the evidence and testimonies, as he would in any normal Grand Jury process, does not speak to his fairness or impartiality but to his bias and prejudice in favor of law enforcement officers.

Once again, if you are Black, you needn’t count on the protection of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution:

Amendment XIV Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Another certainty is evidenced in Ferguson, not only is Darren Wilson not a ham sandwich, Michael Brown was not an 18 year old white citizen. Neither was the 12 year old with the BB gun in Cleveland, OH. Had he been a white kid, he’d still be alive.


Filed under Uncategorized

4 responses to “No Ham Sandwich

  1. I never really understood what a Grand Jury was. Its such an inflated title! My thinking is its merely what we call a “committal hearing” under a magistrate which basically exists to determine whether there is enough evidence to warrant a trial. (now abolished in Tasmania and WA.) In Victoria the DPP (Department of Public Prosecutions) can ignore a magistrates ‘committal’ outcome and proceed to trial anyway. It’s abolished in the UK and Canada.
    Clearly the system is seriously flawed.
    Now Obama has weighed in……is there no simpler, more just system?

  2. C. Joseph

    Truth well spoken.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s