She seems to be making her decision based on demands from the public ‘no justice, no peace’ as opposed to just the evidence. She should not be answering to ‘no justice, no peace’; she should be answering to the law. Period!
...
That's what she was saying she was doing - answering to the law, pursuing justice under the law. You have to take her comments in context, and based on the context of her statements it's pretty clear that's what she meant. They are seeking justice. Based on what the investigation has revealed so far, she thinks charging the officers involved is apprpriate. They will get to defend themselves against those charges if they wish to, and she went out of her way to reiterate that, under the law, they are innocent until proven guilty. It is a process, a process in pursuit of justice.
Now, you may have reason to believe that charging the officers with what they've been charged with isn't justified by the evidence that she is aware of and the laws as they exist. If that's the case, fair enough; though I would be interested in what you would base such a belief on. I won't pretend to know whether all of the charges can be justified by the evidence they have, obviously I don't know what all of that evidence is. But it seems fairly clear to me that at least some charges against some officers are warranted, someone did something wrong - most likely illegal - here.
But that aside, we're talking about what she said and whether it was appropriate. And it seems to me that it was quite appropriate. She's telling the people of Baltimore, would-be protestors, we've heard you. You want justice. You don't want this to go like other situations have, in your view, gone - where police misconduct was swept under the rug or ignored. You want these officers to be held accountable for what they did. Well, they will be. They will have to answer for what they did, under the law. Again, she was clear that this was a process and that they were innocent until proven guilty. But her point was that the authorities were doing their job - pursuing justice. So the people need to hold up their end, acting peacefully while they pursue it. What in the hell is wrong with that message, it seems dead on balls right to me?
Like I suggested, perhaps you disagree that this is justice - that charging the officers and trying to make cases against them is wrong, that it isn't justified by the evidence but rather is motivated by an improper desire to appease certain people. I don't see that. Perhaps it's true, but I don't have good reason to believe it yet. But as for what she said, it was quite reasonable. She wasn't saying we're ####ing these officers over so ya'll calm down. She was saying, we're pursuing justice so you all be peaceful. She gave no hint in that press conference that she was doing anything other than following the law as you suggest she should be doing.
