We Will Never Know What a Jury Would have Ruled

   Bernardo Palacios should not have been killed by police. Yes, he had been involved in an armed hold-up. Yes, he had a gun.
   Watch the videos. Do you ever see him threaten the officers with his gun? I watch them time-and-time again. I don't see it. I listen as the district attorney, Sim Gill, explains that the officers pointed the gun at officers. No, I don't see that.
   The killing of Bernardo Palacios remains unjustified, from all that I see.
   But, here is what is also wrong: The trial has already taken place, and Bernardo had no representation -- no one to speak for his side of the case. The DA listened to the officers who did the shooting. They were, in essence, called to the witness stand. They presented their case to the DA. The case against the officers? Who was there to present it?  Bernardo? He was killed before he could reach the witness stand. Was the Palacios family lawyer brought in to argue? No, he wasn't.
   The DA acted as the judge. He took the evidence, and he ruled on the case. The videos presented strong evidence against the officers. But, rather than passing that evidence along to the courts and letting them make the decision, Sim Gill cut short the process and made a ruling, himself. The Sixth Amendment calls for American trials to be tried by jury, not by DAs, and it calls for those such as Bernardo to be represented by their attorneys. Bernardo's case deserved as much.
  Yes, to uphold our Constitution, we should have had a real trial. Justice was cut short and we will never know what a jury would have ruled.