The article gives significant evidence for its thesis. You give none.

Bill Michtom A proper education is evidence enough of my opinion. Granted, it is unlikely that there are any hard numbers as to subjectivity of my opinion. I understand that. Here, the prosecutor looked at the facts and likely decided there was no probable cause. However, he did not want to be responsible for the decision. Thus, he figured it would be better if the grand jury was responsible for deciding whether there was probable cause. The fact remains that if the media had not hopped on the race train, this would have been a open and shut case of a cop protecting himself.

Carolyn, there would have been a case if the person doing the shooting was NOT a cop. Otherwise, very unlikely.

That depends; in this particular case the DA is in the process of releasing all the evidence he has (which is also something he promised to do early on in the event of no indictment). Now the question becomes what the evidence shows. It is possible (albeit fairly unlikely as far as I can tell) that the evidence shows that there never really was much of a case against Darren Wilson, and he's doing this to avoid accusations of throwing the case due to being in bed with Ferguson PD.

The other possibility (which I personally would rate as much more likely) is that there was a decently strong case against Darren Wilson and the jury just wasn't interested, and he's taking the fight out of the courtroom and into the court of public opinion. I'm not sure which it was, but it seems like we might be able to find out for ourselves either way fairly soon.

Adam Rodriguez why would you rate one case more likely than the other?

but bart, we all know THIS grand jury was convened for one purpose. for a majority white, racist, white jury to take a lying pig's word as gold and validate the actions of a pussy, trigger happy pig. it is a state sanctioned murder through and through. burn the pig party to the ground, as far as i am concerned.

Except that most people don't realize that grand juries almost ALWAYS indict, so your claim doesn't hold water.

I agree that the headline is misleading and not representative of the generally high quality, unbiased content of this site.

Bill Michtom According to a recent article, in New York state, 9% of cases are REJECTED by grand juries.

In the story, we make the point that political/community pressure could have influenced the decision to bring this case to a grand jury.

So, giving a thesis, supporting it with significant evidence and then giving possible reasons to see it differently equals shoddy journalism?

Your comment is shoddy trolling, not a legitimate critique.

Ben Casselman yes, about 10 minutes after the "incredibly rare" headline in 36 point font. This is just irresponsible. You and Nate Silver should be ashamed of yourselves.

Hey idiot, a suspect has a legal right to testify to the grand jury.

They presented the whole case because the prosecutor felt there wasn't one to begin with and wanted to avoid the political repercussions of not taking it to the grand jury. By presenting all of the testimony and evidence, he washed his hands of the decision he would have made had the case not been picked up by the MSM and the feds.

George Thomas , Exactly!