What Obama said about the grand jury (and what he could have said)
There are Americans who agree with it, and there are Americans who are deeply upset, even angry. It's an understandable reaction. But I join Michael's parents in asking anyone who protests this decision to do so peacefully.
Let's consider these words. He starts by appearing to give both sides an even footing, but then he allows that anger is understandable, which is tantamount to it being justified.
A man of peace, a man with compassion and yet a representative of the nation, would not say it is an understandable reaction – because it isn't. It is not understandable to be angry unless you believe that a result of a lawful and objective jury decision is unfair – and angry with whom? The police in general? The government of the state? The world?
He then goes on not to say that justice has to be trusted, but to call for those who "protest" to be non-violent. But he does in truth call for protest.
Thomas Lifson adds:
Let’s consider what could have been. President Obama could have discussed the thorough process of evidence review undertaken by the grand jury. He could have discussed why grand jury secrecy is an important feature of the justice system in all 50 states. He could have stressed that all Americans of all races are protected by the process of checks and balances built into the grand jury system. He could have mentioned that the grand jury was representative of the demographic composition of the St. Louis area. He could have urged all those with anger and frustration to take the time to review the evidence seen by the grand jury before jumping to conclusions.
But instead he stated that anger was “understandable.”