121
Grand jury declines to indict Ohio man charged with destroying Flock camera (san.com)
submitted 2 days ago by to c/main@hexbear.net
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 50 points 2 days ago (2 children)

For those unfamiliar: the "grand jury" looked at all the evidence presented by the cops and ruled "no crime has been committed here, we don't even need to have a trial (with a whole other trial jury) because we dont see any possibility of crime"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 36 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    In addition, "grand juries" are notoriously easy for prosecutors influence and get an indictment (basically a go-ahead to proceed to a jury trial). The saying among defense attorneys is that grand juries are so easy to persuade, even a mildy competent prosecutor could get a grand jury to 'indict a ham sandwich'.

    So if they weren't able to get it past a grand jury, they either had absolutely no case, screwed something up majorly in presentation, or these camera are extremely and universally unpopular.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 days ago

    Investigators, according to WKRC-TV in Cincinnati, identified Morelock after obtaining surveillance footage from other cameras near the scene as well as information linked to a credit card and a customer rewards account.

    Sounds like they had enough evidence -- I'm betting it's the "universally unpopular" explanation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent