In a similar insurrection (?) the effective strategy was to target the “engineers” and higher ups in the organization not just the street level terrorists (suicide bombers), here and now Antifa/BLM. The rich funders and enablers seem to think they are immune from consequences.

https://www.outkick.com/mark-jones-jalen-rose-blm-cult-and-why-you-should-kick-your-espn-habit/

I don’t know if the grand jury law operates materially differently in KY, but in NY, supposing that a DA actually wants a no-bill, the first impediment would be that the prosecutor has to in some sense go out of his or her way to present a weak set of evidence. (Bear in mind that the point of a grand jury is only to check that there is enough of a case to go to trial with – it is not an actual trial. The prosecution still has to win in court later on even if the grand jury is acting as a ‘rubber stamp’.)

Now if the DA purposely puts forth a weak collection of evidence for the indictment, at least in NY, grand juries do have power to call additional witnesses in many scenarios, should they choose to use it. The grand jury on which I sat didn’t usually feel that motivated, I have to admit, in spite of some efforts on my part to move the needle, but the option does exist. (Another potential issue is that sometimes when you have a particularly, shall we say, ‘strong personality’ in the foreman’s position, who can get a little bit too obsessive about efficiency as the primary consideration, it is possible for certain questions in the deliberations to get shorter shrift than they may deserve, especially if a critical mass of the jurors are just along for the ride mentally.) But a lot of these types of difficulties are of such a nature that one can always say “well, it’ll all get sorted out at trial.”

I think, though, that if you get grand jurors who take that civic responsibility seriously, you can see good outcomes not necessarily in alignment with the DA’s desires on a particular case. So it can be a useful citizen-based check on the DA, though I would agree with you that a grand jury’s power to galvanize a lethargic prosecutor is more limited than its ability to tamp down the ardor of an overzealous one.

Do you really think that just because you state something like “the cops murdered an innocent person,” that makes it so? It does not. You are apparently one of those people who, as Andrew McCarthy writes, are not interested in the facts of the case:

They could not care less how the law applies to the evidence a Lexington grand jury pored over this week. Their interest is only to set in stone a distorted narrative: Police officers on the hunt for a young black man, callously gunned down an innocent young black woman after supposedly crashing into an apartment without warning.

Read the whole article, which explains the situation in great detail. I doubt you will, because I doubt you want to know the facts. You’d rather scream “murder.”

In criminal cases the DA is in charge of the prosecution. During grand jury testimony, only the prosecution presents its case. The defense is not heard. That doesn’t mean that the prosecution presents the case you want them to present – you know, the murder case that has no evidence of murder.

Indeed. The most effective and least destructive strategy is to reelect Pres. Trump.

Once reelected he can; invoke the Insurrection Act.
10 U.S. Code Chapter 13 – INSURRECTION

Charge rioters with insurrection and seditious conspiracy;
18 U.S. Code §?2384.Seditious conspiracy

Invoking and enforcing the Insurrection Act is sure to increase rioting, in response Trump can declare Martial Law. He can then take off the kid gloves and bring the hammer down on the left.

Under 10 U.S. Code § 253 – Interference with State and Federal law Trump can arrest and try those funding the Insurrection and those mayors, governors and Congressional representatives who are interfering with State and Federal law.

When House democrats move to impeach Trump he can charge them with 10 U.S. Code § 253 – Interference with State and Federal law…

It’s this or Civil War. This or 1984.

Facts don’t fit your narrative. Look up the words “murder, innocent.” See “OfficerTatum” web site among many others. Or not, whatever.

with “things generally deteriorating across the country, what do us ordinary people do?”

There are two facets to this issue; personal safety and societal survival. Of the two, personal safety is the more difficult issue.

Normally, personal safety is held within reasonable bounds, in that we can rely on the justice system to act within its legal obligations. Cops arrest, D.A.’s prosecute, juries try and judges sentence, all according to the law.

Given the current state of affairs, especially in democrat ruled cities, citizens cannot rely upon the justice system. This is an entirely intentional tactic by the left. Soros emplacing leftist D.A.s who refuse to enforce the law and funding the rioters is not accidental. It’s part of a planned strategy to sow division and anxiety, such that confidence is lost in our societal institutions.

Defending oneself starts with not placing oneself in a foreseeably vulnerable position. So eating at a downtown open air restaurant is now unwise. Forearmed is forewarned, so carrying non-lethal defensive weaponry is now advisable. After checking with state laws and if legal; pepper gel and loud whistles is the minimum. Non-lethal but decidedly more aggressive are weapons like the Kubotan Self-Defense Rod and the Fast Strike Self-Defense weapon.

Finally and decidedly lethal is a concealed carry pistol.
Just showing one is a deterrent but you risk prosecution in using one.

So, avoid situations that are inherently problematic.
Retreat if possible.
Be prepared to act aggressively with the degree of force you’ve already considered.