So, this is the GQ answer? No higher calling for grand juries in 1787 other than to keep from paying professionals? Why the need to put it in the Constitution?
Prosecutors are elected in most states, are they not? Therefore the “independent prosecutor” goes out the window.
Independent Prosecutor is a job title, not a description of a prosecutor who is independent. An independent prosecutor is by definition appointed.
Fair enough, but this person is still subject to losing his/her job if Sanford, FL burns to the ground because of a decision that he/she makes. That’s not functionally different from an elected position.
A grand jury, OTOH, is confidential and immune to such reprisals.
Sanford FL wasn’t going to burn to the ground regardless, so I’m not sure it really matters. But in anycase, I believe Independent and Special Prosecutors usually are appointed to investigate a particular case or issue. When the Grand Jury makes their decision, they lose the job irregardless of what the decision is, because the job then no longer exists.
Unless you are one of those who is called to serve on the “people’s panel” at the federal level for 18 months.
They still only see the case as presented by the AUSA.
Not exactly. States Attorneys/District Attorneys are elected politicians, but outside of the movies they rarely prosecute the cases themselves. Virtually all prosecutors are appointed.
Similarly the special prosecutor in this case was appointed by the Governor of Florida.
Burning to the ground is hyperbole. The political fallout from a bad decision could still cause the prosecutor to be fired, even if that was his only case that he made a bad decision.
The grand jurors would be happy to “lose the job” unless they enjoy the luxurious $15 per day that the state of Florida pays. 
Sorry, that sentence was a mess. I meant to say:
“But in anycase, I believe Independent and Special Prosecutors usually are appointed to investigate a particular case or issue. Once the case ends they lose their job regardless of the outcome, because the job no longer exists”.
I meant to say “Special Prosecutor”, not “Grand Jury”.
Kenn Starr, to cite probably the most famous example, kept working at his “day-job” in a private law firm after he was appointed to investigate White Water.
It’s a bit amusing that a few posts after apologizing to “the black community” you decide to insult them yet again with a post that is offensive, stupid and borderline racist.
“The black community”(to borrow your phrase) was not going to burn down Sanford, Florida anymore than they were going to start gang-raping white women.
And for the record, I’m not accusing you of being offensive or stupid, I’m referring to your post.
There is political pressure being brought and an implicit threat of violence. I don’t care if it is a bunch of rednecks doing the taunting, the threat is there and it affects the prosecutor/grand jury subject of my OP.
I don’t know where you get these accusations that my post is racist or that I implied that blacks were gang-raping white women. I suggested no such thing.
Had I said that you implied blacks were gang-raping white women you’d have a point, but I didn’t so you don’t.
What I said was that suggesting that the black community would burn down Sanford Florida was as stupid as suggesting they start gang-raping white women en masse.
Please don’t misrepresent what I say.
Now, what you very strongly implied in two seperate posts was that “the black community”(as you put it) would burn down Sanford, Florida if Zimmerman wasn’t arrested.
I said that such a claim is stupid, offensive and borders on racism and I stand by that.
The burning of the whole town was hyperbole. The threat of violence was not. I take issue with your claim of racism because I point out that fact.
I suspect prosecutors deal with threats of violence from people far more credible then the “new black panthers” on a relatively regular basis. Presumably they get used to it.
So, after twice invoking the boogeyman of angry blacks burning down Sanford, you’re merely saying you were engaging in “hyberbole”?
Perhaps someone should complain that Barack Obama should “stop spending so much time eating KFC and start spending more time governing” and when people complain say “that was just hyperbole.”
If Trayvon Martin was white and Zimmerman black, would you be talking about being afraid that Sean Hannity might “burn down Sanford”?
Please.
And no, you didn’t point out “a fact”.
No national black leaders have made any explicit threats(please don’t try and pretend the three people who compromise the New Black Panther Party count).
You invoked Al Sharpton. Fine, show us the threats he’s made.
In fact, compared to the Republic politicians who invoked “second amendment remedies” and the Tea Partiers who brought guns to anti-Obama rallies the leaders of the black community has been extremely restrained despite facing far more provocative actions.
A
I’m late to the party, but I will say that you are 100% wrong here. Technically speaking he never called for a “torching”, but I clearly remember him saying if Zimmerman wasn’t arrested that there would be “civil unrest”. That sounds like a threat to me. And no, I don’t have a cite at hand and it’s too late to go searching for one so you will have to take my word for it. I listened to it live and my father and I discussed it. He made a threat and in my opinion he should have been arrested for inciting a riot. We all know a riot hasn’t happened and I applaud the African American community in Sanford for staying calm. Zimmerman might be guilty our he might be innocent, but it isn’t up to you, me or a mob to decide that. A jury will make that determination and they don’t need Al Sharpton help to do it either.
The black community has been doing a fantastic job in showing restraint. However Al Sharpton hadn’t been doing the same. I know I said it was to late to provide a cite, but since you are so convinced I thought it was worth the effort to prove you wrong. So, here you go:
I am sure you will tell us he was just kidding or that the threat of civil disobedience is code for getting together and holding hands. There is no way you can defend this. The black community needs to tell this guy to shut the hell up as he does more to divided the races than just about anyone else in this Country.
Having political pressure exist is different than showing that pressure unduly influenced a decision.
People all over the world do jobs everyday where they face a great deal of pressure of various sorts. None of that means that those people are necessarily performing poorly or un-ethically merely because they’re performing a job under pressure.
So, before we accept that Corey’s decision was unduly motivated by external pressures, we should make the case which shows that Corey was unduly motivated by external pressures.
Imho anyway.
ymmv
Pssst. You may want to read the article before claiming that it somehow supports your position.
What was this crazy act of civil disobedience?
Oh. They marched. Admittedly while wearing hoodies and eating skittles, but notably lacking in the pitchfork and torches department.
Civil disobedience isn’t code for getting together and holding hands – getting together and holding hands is the definition of civil disobedience. According to Websters, civil disobedience is “nonviolent opposition to a government policy or law by refusing to comply with it, on the grounds of conscience.” It is the term used most frequently to refer to the philosophies of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., who advocated non-violent resistance. By calling for civil disobedience, Sharpton was explicitly asking for protests to be non-violent, even if he hadn’t used the word “peaceful”.
If a professional prosecutor can be scared that urban youths are going to burn the town down, why exactly wouldn’t conscripted grand jurors be even more scared?