What good would talking about slavery, separate but equal or racism do when talking to a racist? Serious question...You (sic) problem is not being able to elaborate on 'what has happened' and 'why'......just sayin'
Everything in your life is a reflection of a choice you have made. If you want a different result, don't blame someone else, or expect others to make a change, you should stop complaining and make a different choice. Remember, the circumstances of your birth don't determine the outcome of your life.
You see what you want, which is formed by your own biased and convoluted thoughts.
There is no comparison here between the Grand Jury decision and Dunn or in the arguments I have made.
Dunn's trial holds no significance in relation to any Grand Jury Decision.
Had Dunn actions been brought before a Grand Jury they would have returned a true bill. There is no doubt about that. But that doesn't mean he committed a crime, especially as the evidence threshold to return a true bill is very low.
As to his trial, no one denies what the Jury found. But the argument is that the evidence does not fit what the Jury found.
As we all know Trial Juries get things wrong all the time, not everything got presented to the Jury in Dunn's case, nor is every lawyer able to argue the evidence the same. Which is exemplified by the first Jury being hung because folks believed his account.
So you are not telling anybody anything they do not know. And even though you appear to know, it doesn't seem to dawn on you what their decision means.
This is quite simple.
This is an incident where the GJ was used to determine if evidence was sufficient to even suggest that a crime was committed.
The threshold to find that a crime may have been committed is very low, so low in fact that it is said a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.
In this specific case all the evidence was presented to the Grand Jury and they were allowed to ask questions of the witnesses. Which allowed for more information to be reviewed and scrutinized than in a trial setting.
The fact that all the evidence was presented and that the members were allowed to ask questions makes your point about a single party irrelevant.
They didn't find such in this case. That means the evidence (all of it, in toto) doesn't "exist" to even suggest a crime may have happened.
So yeah. That does "technically" mean for all intent and purposes that no crime was committed as the evidence in toto says one was not committed to be able to charge the person in the first place. Which is exactly what you are not getting.
Read their questioning of the witnesses. They weren't dumb. Nor did they need any other party to spin the information to a certain narrative.
Now if you want to say they got it wrong and argue the evidence and not their finding, then have at it. That is something entirely different.
That is permissible as Jury Members are not infallible.
"The law is reason, free from passion."