johnclark1102

He recognizes the passenger because he has previously arrested the passenger, and was aware that the passenger was a convicted felon with a history of shooting police officers. He's more concerned with the passenger because he knows that the passenger is a convicted felon with a history of shooting police officers and he knew there was a firearm in the passengers possession. The driver was also instantly compliant, putting his hands out the window, and complying with the lawful orders he was being given. The passenger wasn't. I didn't hear any conflicting verbal commands. The commands I heard were very clear, don't move, don't reach for anything, show me your hands. At one point the suspect says, "I'm getting out of the car" and the officer commands, "No you're not, don't ... move!" Simple commands that were apparently ignored. The gun does appear to be retrieved at the start of the conflict, however, that's not really relevant to the officer's line of thinking. The suspect is a convicted felon and shouldn't have a firearm in his possession in the first place. The suspect has a violent history including shooting police officers. It's not unreasonable to believe that if he's failing to comply with lawful orders, he intends to use violence against these officers in his attempt to avoid arrest and returning to prison. Maybe he has a firearm on his person and the one in the glove box belonged to the driver. Maybe he has a knife. Maybe he intends to use physical force to overpower the officer and take the officer's firearm. There are several scenarios that could leave the officer with a reasonable belief that this suspect intends to harm him. His hands may appear empty in the video after he's raised them, but at that point it is too late. In the split second the officer had to make that decision, in the dark, with an adrenaline rush, with disorienting flashing lights in his peripheral vision, knowing that this suspect has shot at police officers in the past, has a history of using violence against other people, and is not complying with his orders, the officer believed the suspect had a weapon, possibly another firearm, and was getting out of the car and raising his hands at the officer in order to kill him. That's not an unreasonable belief, taking all of the known facts into account. I'm not familiar with UK law, but in the US, the law does not require someone to point a weapon at you, or even to have a weapon at all, in order to justify the use of deadly force. US law does not even require that someone pose a lethal threat to you in order to justify deadly force. US law only requires that you "reasonably believe" the person poses an "imminent threat of great bodily harm." Based on the circumstances, I think it's reasonable to believe that the officer believed this man intended to harm him. As I've said with all of the other incidents that have happened lately, did this man deserve to die? No. Did the officer commit a crime by his actions? No. It's simply a tragedy that could have been avoided if the suspect had complied with the law. That's my opinion based on my knowledge of the law and the facts of this incident.

I'm working on a new car and I've encountered an issue where the wheels are not there and the textures start flashing all over the screen. Another iteration of this bug has resulted in the wheels appearing horizontal instead of vertical (like the hover car mode of the DeLorean in Back to the Future). Sometime the car works fine, but sometimes it spawns without wheels as described above. Here is a video for reference (Please forgive the quality of the video. I'm out of town for work for the next 4 days and don't have access to my gaming computer, but I had one of my testers make this quick video for me): I feel like I've encountered and fixed this problem once before, but it was probably 6 months ago and I've made 7 other cars since then so I honestly don't remember what I did to fix it back then. So far, I've tried the following changes without success, so I thought I'd seek help from someone else here that might have fixed this issue before. - Making a new "chassis" and "fbi.wft" dummy and moving all the parts into the new dummies in case I accidentally moved something - Tried a quick rebuild of the car from a few previous saves - Tried re-installing the previous FBI model in that slot, that car works without issue but as soon as I use this model I start getting the intermittent wheel / texture bug - Tried re-installing my game and then adding the new car in. Same bug persists after a re-install. If anyone has had any success in fixing this issue or has any advice on other fixes I can attempt, I'd be grateful for some other opinions. On a semi related note, I'm at least partially thinking that this issue may be related to the car model itself. I've experienced some other issues with this model over the last 3 times I've used it, including an RC20 crash. Unfortunately, this 2010 Interceptor is the only unlocked Interceptor Sedan I have at the moment, so if anyone knows of any better models of the Interceptor Sedan, preferably a more recent model year, I'd welcome those recommendations as well for future use. Thanks for the help everyone!

I think the file structure will be similar and it should be a matter of time before people figure out the file types and such for modding cars, peds, buildings etc. The harder part is what impact modding will have on the game in terms of the GTA Online component. It sounds like they will be doing Rockstar Based servers for the online system instead of local hosting like GTA IV. With Rockstar hosting official servers, it's likely there will be some strict anti-cheat protocols in place to prevent anyone cheating online. That may have the undesired effect of making ti so anyone that mods the game can't play online. Only time will tell...

Low level drug offenses are illegal. The police are not responsible for that, the politicians that make the laws are. The protests you speak of in Ferguson, and everywhere else for that matter, are unlawful assemblies. "Peaceful" is not the only requirement for a lawful assembly in this country. I'll explain this more in relation to your first amendment quote posted below. Also, the first night that Captain Johnson and the Highway patrol took over, they lost control of the crowds, several officers were injured because they were ordered not to wear their protective equipment (riot gear), and in innocent civilian was shot in the leg by the "peaceful protesters". The situation was certainly NOT "drastically deescalated", despite whatever false information the media may have lead you to believe. Captain Johnson himself made a public statement to the media around 3 in the morning acknowledging that he lost control of the crowd and had to change their tactics and reverted to using armored vehicles and tear gas at midnight to disperse the crowd and regain control. Being peaceful is not the only requirement for a lawful assembly in this country. Furthermore, a long standing legal precedent exists whereby the rights granted by the Constitution may be reasonably regulated so long as they are not completely infringed. The first amendment is one of those. For example, "freedom of speech" means that you can say anything you want, but, you might still have to answer to the consequences for what you say. No one can stop you from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but if anyone is hurt or killed during the panic that follows from your exercise of free speech, you can be charged with inciting a panic or other charges because of the consequences of what you chose to say. For lawful assemblies, yes it must be peaceful. But the rest of the amendment also says, "...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The legal interpretation of this in every state and city I've ever lived in, is that you must apply for and be granted a permit for your assembly. The permit application serves as your petition to the Government and establishes your redress of grievances. Furthermore, your "rights" may not infringe upon the rights of other people, or otherwise violate any laws in the exercise thereof. This usually means that you cannot interfere with any person that is not participating in the protest, you cannot be on private property, you cannot protest early in the morning or late at night when you would disturb other people, etc. So, the protests in Ferguson and elsewhere in the country, while peaceful at times, are illegal. These people are breaking the law by not obtaining permits, endangering the public by blocking roads and highways, by trespassing on private property, obstructing persons that are not part of the protest, violating noise ordinances, committing disorderly conduct, etc. It's the same reason the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters were arrested, they were breaking the law. Had cooler heads prevailed in Ferguson, no one would have ever heard of the city and it would have remained an unknown suburb of St. Louis. The entire protest movement there was based on a story of events that has now been proven to be a lie. The police officers here don't think they have to handle everything, they are expected to handle everything. That's why they are trained and equipped to do so. It didn't used to be that way, but after years of budget cuts, manpower reductions, and so on, many police departments operate on minimum staff. A lot of agencies don't have a swat team, or negotiators, or crime scene technicians, and the basic patrol officers are expected to do everything by themselves since the city can't afford to pay 2 officers to ride together and it may be hours before the nearest county or state agency can mobilize a swat team to come help. Our police are not "militarized". In fact, most of the "military" weapons that police carry here are personally owned firearms that any civilian can purchase. My local Sheriff's Office is one of the largest in the country, and they do not issue rifles or shotguns. All long guns carried by our Deputies are personally owned weapons that were purchased by the Deputy, as a civilian, with his or her own money. There's nothing "militarized" about it. Most of our Deputies also carry personally owned sidearms as well. We do not have a gun problem. We have a criminal problem. Every case of "high crime rates", "mass shootings", "and all that happens" has one thing in common, a criminal, period, end of story.

Yup, I'll be able to run it based on those system specs. But, we all know how GTA IV worked on PC so there's no telling if those specs will yield the desired result. On a semi related note, I guess I'm the only one that feels like 65GB is nothing... Maybe I just have a big hard dive.

All of my released vehicles so far have included the textures for all blue lights as an available option. A lot of modelers will include these texture options, myself included, because it takes minimal effort for a user to learn how to use OpenIV enough to replace the textures. We probably don't see many models released with all blue in the first place because it's a style of lighting that is being phased out by many departments that used to use it, and a majority of agencies in the country are already using red and blue.

Because in the US, we have the right to do so in order to protect our lives and property, and in most states, the lives and property of the people around us. Carrying an unsecured firearm and leaving it near a child was very irresonsible, and this poor woman paid a high price for her negligence. It's not really madness. Do you have smoke detectors in your home? How about a fire extinguisher? Do you have seat belts and airbags in your car? Are you expecting your house to catch fire? Are you planning to get into a car accident? Of course not... But both of those things could happen to you any time, so you are prepared for the chance that it could happen to you and you have the appropriate tools to reduce the risk to your life and property. Firearms are no different. I exercise my right to carry a concealed firearm, not because I feel that I NEED to, but because I can and one day I might unexpectedly have to use it to save my life or my friend's lives. Citizens use their concealed carry rights more often than people realize. Why would it make the news? A law abiding citizen doing the right thing and protecting himself from a criminal is way things are supposed to happen,. It's not really news worthy. Most Americans do not feel the need to buy an M4 carbine rifle either, and fortunately, we cannot buy those at our local gun dealers. Fully automatic weapons are highly regulated and not legal for your average citizen to own or posses. If someone breaks into your home, do as they say? What if their intent is to kill you? What if they came to rob you but decide to kill you because they weren't expecting you to be home and they don't want you to provide their description to the police? You can't "do as they say" if you're dead. And why should I have to do as a criminal says? Criminals deserve no sympathy or leniency. Pepper spray is not as effective as people think, and often serves to do nothing more than just make people angry which can make things more dangerous for you as a victim. I've been pepper sprayed through law enforcement training, and it really wasn't that bad and I had to fight through the spray. It doesn't work as well as people think, and if my life is on the line it's not a chance I'm willing to take. Yes, the state laws can be rather counter intuitive sometimes. As for the second amendment and the time it was written, in the 1700's those black powder muzzle loading muskets were "high tech, military grade assault rifles". If they wanted people then to have military grade weapons, why shouldn't the logic continue further in time? Of course, today we can't own "military grade" weapons anyway, because those are highly restricted and not legal for citizens to own or posses under most circumstances. Furthermore, one of the interpretations behind the second amendment was that the civilian populous should be armed with weapons capable of protecting the country from an invading army, or the army of our own tyrannical government. The armed civilian population during the revolutionary war is one of the reasons this country earned its independence, and the second amendment was written in part to ensure that the American people would be capable of defending that freedom.

First of all, great job and a big thank you to the entire LCPDFR team for the amazing work you guys do. Every release seems to bring in new features and enhancements that everyone loves, and I know that takes countless hours of work. My personal first impressions with 1.0D haven't been great unfortunately, but I believe that is largely due to me only playing Multiplayer. I've been experiencing the same bugs and issues with 1.0D that I've had with every version of 1.0 so far. Windows 8 has also given me a lot of trouble getting everything to work, so again my negative experience is in no way a reflection on the LCPDFR mod itself or the people behind it. I'm still holding out hope one day for a "bare bones" Multiplayer friendly version of the script, since all I need is the ability to do traffic stops and interact with peds on the street. I have no idea what the workload would be to re-work the code to include just those features, so I've accepted the fact that I'm a very small minority of LCPDFR users and I try to work with it. Unfortunately, I think I've broken my GTA installation to the point that a re-install is necessary, but in the process of testing 1.0D last night I had the same issues that I had with 1.0C: Trouble installing, Taser didn't work, I couldn't get anyone to pull over on a traffic stop, when someone would run from me in a vehicle they would pull over and stop as soon as I turned on my siren and then drive off crazy again as soon as I turned off my siren, and whenever a suspect foot bails from a car during a pursuit my game crashed to desktop. All of those are the exact same bugs that I experienced with 1.0C. But, I'm sure most of it is related to me playing multiplayer only and Windows 8 being stupid, so just like last time, I'm going to continue working on fixing these issues and enjoy version .95 until I can get 1.0 working. You guys answered my prayers with controller support in a past update, so hopefully one day I'll figure out how to fix the rest of these issues. Despite the issues I've experienced, I'm very excited to see the development progress on LCPDFR and I can't wait to see what the future holds.

Every person has the right to have and express their own opinions, even if other people disagree with it. I'm Jewish. Some of my family fled Nazi Germany. Some survived with numbers on their arms. Some died there. I'm well aware of what happened during that time period. Also, that's not relevant to this incident. In both of the time periods you referred to, someone else decided to kill people because of what they believed or what they said. No one decided to kill Eric Garner; his death was an accident that wouldn't have happened if he had simply accepted the fact that he got caught breaking the law again and went with the officers willingly. And yes, I agree that people make laws and that people make mistakes. That's why I wish that everyone who gets so angry about the current state of our country would direct their anger and frustration at the POLITICIANS who make the laws and hold them accountable, instead of the police officers on the street who are sworn to uphold the laws. If people would direct their frustration at the politicians, the laws might change.

No, it doesn't. The NYPD has changed their policy to prohibit police officers from using that technique anymore, but that is NYPD policy and not law. Furthermore, the technique the officer claims to have used is one in which you use your opposite hand to brace your take down arm specifically to avoid compression of the suspect's wind pipe. The maneuver is designed to provide leverage through your body weight to throw the suspect off balance and take them to the ground. The officer has stated that was his intent, only to take Garner to the ground, using a standard maneuver that he was taught during the Academy. The last time I researched this incident, the Medical Examiner's office also stated that Garner's death was caused by cardiac arrest and an asthma attack, which was triggered by "compression of the chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police". He was not asphyxiated, meaning he was not choked to death. The police could not have reasonably known how poor Garner's health was, and even if they had, they would have had to be intentionally trying to harm him in order for a crime to have been committed. The law focuses a lot on what someone's intent was when something happens. There is a big difference between intentionally trying to harm someone, and an accident. The grand jury found that they didn't intend to harm him and were only attempting to affect a lawful arrest. He didn't deserve to die, and any loss of life is a tragedy. But he also shouldn't have broken the law or resisted the police, and I believe that people need to be held responsible fro their own actions and the consequences they carry. Garner's poor health and poor choices were a causal factor in his death, and the police had nothing to do with either of those factors.

Complacency. Criminals fake medical conditions all the time, ranging from difficulty breathing, to chest pains, to faking seizures, etc. I've even heard a suspect say he had AIDS that was acting up and needed to go to the hospital right away. It's like they think that if they are sick they will just go to the hospital and then be released to go home. So a lot of officers and EMT's can get callous and seem uncaring when a criminal claims to have a medical issue during the arrest., because they hear the same thing every day from liars that are wasting their time and effort, tying up emergency response personnel, and putting innocent people that are experiencing legitimate medical conditions at risk by doing so. Despite that, every claim of medical issue is treated seriously, which is why the medics were called for Eric Garner. Don't get me wrong, Mr. Garner didn't deserve to die. But, I also believe his death is just the end result of his poor choices. He chose to break the law multiple times. He'd been arrested more than 30 times for various crimes including assault and grand larceny, and at the time of this incident he was out on bail after being arrested for illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, possession of marijuana, and false impersonation. He then chose to break the law again by continuing to sell cigarettes and resisting arrest when he got caught again. The police are allowed to use physical force to arrest you if you do not comply with their verbal commands, which is why the officer wasn't indicted. Garner also wasn't asphyxiated, he died from cardiac arrest in the ambulance.The officer didn't break the law, so he couldn't be charged with a crime since he didn't commit one. If Mr. Garner had chosen not to break the law or chosen not to resist arrest that day, he would still be alive today. The grand jury found that the cop did NOT strangle Garner to death. Garner died from cardiac arrest in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. The grand jury determined that he officer applied reasonable force using a technique he was taught in the academy to subdue a suspect that was resisting a lawful arrest. You are welcome to believe that it was wrong, but your belief does not make it illegal. The 23 people on the grand jury who were presented with all of the evidence and facts determined that no crime was committed as defined by law.

I'm in Texas. Our policy is, chase them until they're caught or dead. We don't put up with criminals here. I used to volunteer with the Florida Highway Patrol before I moved here, and FHP's policy was only to pursue violent felons. That's a pretty common policy these days, since the politicians worry more about liability than catching the bad guys.

That just reminded me of one of my favorite quotes from The Dark Knight film... Bruce Wayne - "Am I supposed to understand any of that?" Lucious Fox - "No. I just wanted you to know how hard it was." Thanks for all you do LMS!

You can check out the cars that I've built by clicking this link. I've configured them to have independent front / rear lighting. Specifically the Harbor County CVPI and the Harris County Impala V2. More to come in the future...

That's good to know. I was able to get my car working by starting over and ensuring there were no duplicate materials. Turns out there were quite a few, because I didn't know any better when I started building the car several months ago. I ended up going back and rebuilding the car with some of the new techniques and experience I have and it's working now. It could also have been an issue with me accidentally moving a dummy or something too though, but in any case it's fixed. I do think it might have something to do with the collisions, specifically the windows on my car. I've had a lot of trouble with them, they don't currently break, and through investigating that it turns out there are actually two windows on top of each other and they are not 3 dimensional objects in zModeler so it's really hard for me to tell which one I have selected so I can delete the extra window. It's an ongoing project...

The Trayvon Martin case was also ruled by a jury to be lawful self defense within the bounds of the law. And as far as I recall, nothing about the Trayvon Martin incident was on video so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Still looks like a lawful shoot. As soon as the officers arrive they order him to show his hands, instead he reaches into his waistband and pulls the gun out. That's lawful self defense on the officer's part all day long.

It doesn't look fake at all, because it isn't fake. Why should tasers or other non lethal weapons be used more? A taser or non lethal weapon would have been even less effective in the incident that I posted. More people need to just stop breaking the law. Here's another video of an officer involved shooting where the suspect isn't immediately incapacitated, and in fact doesn't even react to being shot. Here's yet another video where an officer attempts to use OC spray, which fails. When he finally resorts to his firearm, the suspect fights through a point blank shot and continues fighting for several minutes, disarming the officer and attempts to murder the officer with his own gun. If the gun hadn't jammed, the officer would be dead. This is the dash camera footage of Deputy Kyle Dinkheller. This is what happens when you are faced with a deadly force situation and you hesitate. When your life is on the line, you do not take any chances. The reality is that self defense tactics and training are the way they are for a reason, and the reason is usually that doing it any other way does not work. If it gets to the point that a person fears for their life, they are allowed to respond with deadly force, whether they are a citizen or a police officer. Deadly force with a firearm means shooting someone center mass with continuous fire until the threat has stopped. Doing it any other way simply does not work reliably enough for it to be a standard practice. Hollywood and naivety have also deceived people that don't have adequate training or experience with firearms to believe that a single gun shot to the arm or leg is not only possible, but will instantly render a suspect compliant and lying on the ground. That is false, beyond any reproach.

I posted this in another thread a few days ago, but it merits repeating here since the point is very relevant to this case as well, and EVERY officer involved shooting. After any Officer Involved Shooting, there will always be people wanting to know why the officer didn't just shoot him in the arm or something. The answer to that question is simple; because it just doesn't work. When the human body goes into "fight or flight" mode during an adrenaline rush, pain is suppressed and the brain can cause your body to push through significant physical injury, including gun shots. Add in the possibility of someone being under the influence of a controlled substance or alcohol, and shooting someone in the arm or leg can literally have zero effect on the person. Not to mention the impractically of expecting even a good marksman to hit a small moving target like an arm or leg without putting undue risk to anyone in the background. Tasers are also ineffective for the same reason among many others (baggy clothing, heavy winter coats, multiple layers of clothing, probes missing or not being close enough, etc). Here's a good example in the video below. The suspect in this video was shot 5 times, including TWICE in the head, once in the chest, once in the shoulder, and once in his wrist. Despite that, and even despite being shot twice in the head and once in the chest, the suspect not only survived, but still retained full body control and was coherent enough to get out of the car after being shot and comply with the officers commands after the shooting. The suspect wasn't laying there dead, or even screaming in pain, because his body suppressed the pain sensation and essentially ignored the injuries. Austin, TX Officer Involved Shooting 08/31/2013 That is why police do not, and should not try to shoot people in the arms or legs, or anywhere other than center mass with continuous fire until the threat has been completely stopped. Any attempt to do anything else does not work and will almost always result in the officer being injured or killed.

I've never head of a permit to own a megaphone. Most places do require that you have a permit to hold a protest, and the conduct of the protest is subject to certain criteria such as not interfering with the public roadways, interfering or trespassing on private property, and not disturbing or interfering with any person who is not participating in the protest, etc. Maybe that's what this person meant and they were simply confused. The requirement for an assembly permit has been ruled by the supreme court as reasonable regulation of the first amendment to ensure that the part of the amendment about "petitioning the government for a redress of grievances" is met, and to ensure that a group of people exercising their right to peaceably assemble do not infringe on the rights of people not part of the assembly. The only issues I could see with a megaphone would be noise violations related to decibel limitations, or using the siren or buzzer mode that some megaphones have.

False. The law does not require someone to be armed as a justification of lawful self defense, plain and simple. And that law does not apply only to police officers, any citizen in the state of Missouri and everywhere else that I've lived, has the right to use deadly force if they believe their aggressor poses an imminent threat of death or serious injury. Police officers are NOT required to use non lethal force in this instance, since the law clearly allows anyone the right to use deadly force, and Officer Wilson did not have a taser so it was not a choice at all. Furthermore, police officers in the state of Missouri are allowed to use deadly force to affect an arrest on someone who has or is believed to have committed a felony. Michael Brown committed multiple felonies prior to being shot. Relevant statues from the state of Missouri: 563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person... 2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony... 563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, a law enforcement officer is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he or she reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody. 2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful. 3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only: (1) When deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or (2) When he or she reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested: (a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony Have you ever had basic firearms training? Have you ever had OC spray training? How about defensive tactics? I have, and I can tell you that OC spray was not the best option and may have made the situation worse. This assumes that Officer Wilson even had OC spray with him, which he might not have since he also didn't have a taser. I don't know any police officers that carry OC spray and I personally don't plan on carrying it either once I graduate the academy. OC spray makes things worse more often than it helps. OC spray also does not always incapacitate someone. I've personally fought through it, since I was required and trained to do so during academy training. When your life is on the line, you don't take any chances. When you are a police officer and you get into a physical fight with someone, priority 1 is to protect your firearm. You are trained to do that by putting both hands on the gun and keeping it in the holster until you have the opportunity to draw it safely. You cannot get OC spray while you have both hand protecting your weapon. The OC spray I've been trained on needs to be shaken before it can be used, so it's not as easy to use as people think. The original assault occurred inside the officer's patrol car. It is unreasonable to expect that the officer could have maintained control over his weapon with one hand, against his training and instinct, while diverting attention to a smaller pouch on his duty belt, retrieving the spray, shake the canister, and attempt to spray it all while hoping the nozzle was pointed the right way, all while being physically assaulted. Even if he was able to do all of that, the likely hood is that in such close quarters, the officer would have also just sprayed himself. He would have had to move through the cloud of spray to exit the vehicle at least, so now you have a police officer who is hurt, scared, and sprayed with his own OC spray. That's the very reason most police officers I know choose not to carry it at all. It doesn't help.

Interestingly enough, it does appear that the grand jury portion of the 5th amendment is one of the few exceptions that does not legally have to be complied without outside of federal charges in a federal court. I'll admit that I wasn't specifically familiar with that exemption, as most states that I am familiar with do respect that section of the 5th amendment and do use grand juries. Good catch. Regardless of that interpretation though, it is apparently a normal procedure in St. Louis county, and since the burden of proof is much lower during a grand jury than it is for a normal trial I can't imagine the end result would have been any different. For anyone interested in learning some more about the exceptions to the bill of rights, here are some excerpts form Constitutional law interpretations:

I'm aware of the legal definition of perjury. I was mostly referring the witnesses that claimed to see something, but then admitted during questioning that they weren't actually there when the incident occurred. I was also being partially sarcastic. There were some witnesses that made statements to the media at the start about seeing Brown being shot in the back, but their own statements also indicated that they were not looking out their windows or were not outside at the time until after they heard the shots being fired. Those same statements are part of the fuel from the start of the incident that led to the hysteria we see today. I personally don't believe that someone can be honestly confused or have a differing opinion about what they saw when they actually didn't see anything at all, and some of the statements people made helped to incite these riots. And the 5th amendment except that I referenced was due to the prosecutors statement that it is part of the reason this went to the grand jury when a reporter asked him why it didn't go straight to a jury trial during the press conference. I don't live in Missouri, and I'm not familiar with their State Constitution or the applicability of the US Constitution in that regard, but since the prosecutor specifically cited that amendment, it appears relevant. I'm also not personally sure about the interpretation that the bill of rights doesn't apply to the states. By that logic, then the 1st amendment right to assemble also does not apply. Not that the rioters are protected by that amendment anyway since they have gone well beyond the realm of peaceful protests and have not petitioned their government for a redress of grievances.

That sounds like one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. But then again, stupid people who don't know the law are the favorite spokes people for the media when discussing a legal event. This case didn't go to a grand jury because the prosecutor knew that it would be some sort of "easy out" or a way to "pass the buck." It went to a grand jury because the law REQUIRED it to go to a grand jury. No one had any choice in the matter, and the 5th amendment is very clear when it says: