

It seems that the only conclusions that really fit the facts are either it was a complete accident (a tragically common occurrence) or the man planned to murder his own child, which seems unthinkable.
The argument then comes down to whether a grand jury, who presumably heard exhaustive facts about the case, concluded that he should not be prosecuted based on their own biases and desires rather than the letter or intent of the law.
It feels a little far fetched to me.














It’s an unfortunately common occurrence, which he is clearly responsible for regardless of his intent, but the argument seems incidental, especially in light of the fact that it was already being treated as a homicide.
The police and DA were pushing for manslaughter but the randomly selected people on the grand jury decided there wasn’t enough evidence even for that reduced charge.
Or are you suggesting they all happened to be trump supporters and conspired to protect this guy because they found out he was “one of the good ones”?
I don’t know, maybe I am stupid, but that sounds far fetched.