Michael Brown

[Fael]

Originally Posted by Duckwalk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're a complete fucking idiot and should never speak again. Grand Jurys are not triers of fact. They exist to soley to determine if there is probable cause which is a very low standard of proof, often cited as a "fair chance" an action or at most 51%.

Officer Wilson may very well be innocent but the decision should have been made by a jury of his peers, not golfing buddies of the DA.

The citizens of Furgeson were robbed of due proceeds rights.

You are a complete fucking idiot actually--not because your wrong, but because you call others idiots without cause. Contrary to the BS you spewed, all juries are triers of fact: they weigh evidence and make a determination of what the facts are; and, in the case of a grand jury, whether those facts provide reasonable grounds for bringing an indictment.

Missouri’s constitution provides that before a grand jury may return an indictment, it must determine that probable cause exists that a crime was committed and the defendant committed it. State v. Eyman, 818 S.W.2d 883, 887 (Mo. App. 1992) “The probable cause for initiating a prosecution is defined in Palermo v. Cottom, 525 S.W.2d 758, 764 (Mo.App.1975), as ‘reasonable grounds for suspicion, supported by circumstances in evidence sufficiently strong to warrant a cautious man in his belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense charged.’” Perry v. Dayton Hudson Corp. 789 S.W.2d 837, 841 (Mo.App. E.D. 1990) (citing Palermo v. Cottom, 525 S.W.2d at 764.)

Contrary to what you suggest, the standard is not as high as 51% (preponderance). It is in fact much lower: “The phrase ‘reasonable grounds’ means ‘that under the circumstances an ordinarily careful and prudent person after having made a reasonable inquiry would have believed the facts alleged and that the judicial proceeding was valid.” Perry v. Dayton Hudson Corp. 789 S.W.2d 837, 841 (Mo.App. E.D. 1990) (citing Palermo v. Cottom, 525 S.W.2d at 764.) “Further, the facts must be considered as the prosecuting party could have reasonably believed them to be under the circumstances at the time. Id.

Your confusion about the 51% standard stems from the two issues before the grand jury: (1) was there reasonable grounds to believe a crime had been committed, and (2) is the person to be charged more likely than not the person who committed it.

If you had listened to the prosecutor last night, there was never any doubt or question about the second issue.

In summary, take your own medicine and "never speak again."



Dolic