If Eric Garner's killer can't be indicted, what cop possibly could? It's time to fix grand juries — "If you are an ordinary citizen being investigated for a crime by an American grand jury, there is a 99.993% chance you’ll be indicted. Yet if you’re a police officer, that chance is effectively nil."

You have an an incomplete and/or incorrect understanding of many issues here. I'll be responding to things you said both in this post I am responding to, and also earlier posts of yours in this comment chain.

A Stand Your Ground law is unique in that it allows deadly force regardless of actual intention by the perpetrator or where the supposed crime takes place.

Categorically incorrect. A "stand your ground law" is a title given to a statute affirmatively stating that a person does not have a duty to retreat from a place they are lawfully present before using deadly force. The "duty to retreat" is itself another legal concept which emerged at common law (through court decisions, as opposed to statute). The duty to retreat was itself narrow, calling only for the retreat when doing so posed no additional risk to the person who was using force in self defense. The "duty to retreat" rule never had any real teeth, and was almost never invoked.

A stand your ground has nothing to do with evaluating or considering the "actual intent" of the person against whom force was used.

Castle Doctrine's apply mostly to one's home. Sometimes, it is any property that said person owns (for instance a business or a car, or something). A Stand Your Ground law is exactly the same, only it applies to you, personally, and not to your property. You are the "castle," in those states.

Again, categorically wrong. "Castle doctrine" statutes create legal presumptions about the threat posed by an intruder to a home (or, in some states, a business or an occupied automobile.) A home intruder is presumed to present a lethal threat, which means you generally may respond with lethal force, justified under the law of self defense. The presumption created through a castle doctrine law may be rebutted, just as an other legal presumption may be rebutted. If there is a clear color video with sound showing that someone broke in to your house, you knocked him out by hitting him over the head with your Grandma's urn, and then choked him to death - guess what - you're still guilty of murder because he no longer posed a threat to you once he was unconscious.

All in all, it is immediately apparent to this criminal defense attorney that you have no formal legal education, and accordingly, have no fucking clue what your'e talking about. Please stop.

/r/politics Thread Link - theguardian.com