EDIT: I have discarded the previous post in full and made it more respectful.Yesterday ypu were very certain of guilt, not the possibility of guilt at trial. Now you have danced a little side step and Realigned yourself and continue with the same level of authoritative not quite tjere as before. This is a common practice of yours.
I hope this states the case quite clearly, and I apologise for the tone and content of the reply prior to this edit if it was seen or preserved in quotations after this point. It was not coming from a good place, and did not further the discussion.
You need to show me exactly where you think I've side stepped, so I can answer that as part of the dialogue.
I believe the misunderstanding has come from us commenting on different aspects of the law and from different perspectives and levels of knowledge with how it works, which is leading to you thinking I have made assertions that I do not believe I have.
The only reason she is not guilty is because of an assumption of innocence.
The District Attorney can use their prosecutorial discretion to decide to try a case or not, but this can also be overturned as part of Judicial Review. We saw this exact process with the Zimmerman trial, where the original DA felt it was a clear self defence shooting and was not going to ever take it to trial. There are also a multitude of reasons for a DA to choose not to try a case, especially one criminal in nature and the burden of evidence required to secure a conviction. You can be guilty of a crime, but the evidence is not enough to prove your guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, so no prosecution will ever occur.
Jones was criminally negligent and it is entirely her fault her child is now dead. Jemison was attacked without provocation, she followed her duty to retreat and deescalate, and when she could retreat no further, responded by defending herself. If it were not for the actions of Jones instigating and then pressing the attack, none of this would have come to pass. The issued indictment is completely in line with the the criminal code of the district.
The law is not unclear on this, your opinion of what is just might be.
I do not believe I have made a statement on what I think is just
I have explained quite clearly why the case was interesting from a constitutional point of view. I might also add that the DA not choosing to prosecute doesn't make that law any less in violation of the Constitutional precedent that has already been set...you can read my previous posts for more information on that.