Watching one of the news networks and one of the guests was lamenting the lack of convictions when the defendant is someone who is or was a cop. I found that interesting and the implication seemed to be that conviction in the Gray case needs to be a pretty much forgone conclusion. Honestly, I'm not sure at all how you get a murder conviction based on the facts as I understand them to be (which may be far different than what's presented at trial), much less a definite conviction. I started wondering if people believed that the prosecutions burden should be something less (or perhaps more) than beyond a reasonable doubt when the person tried is a cop. I actually think a legit argument could be made than someone is a position of authority they way cops are, should not also enjoy quite the same constitutional protections as ordinary citizens although I would totally disagree with that position. What do you think?