Michael Brown

[Duckwalk]

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

Your reasoning is just very strange to me. What does the burden of proof have to do with whether someone is a trier of fact?

A judge is a trier of fact in equity proceedings when he hears evidence and assigns weight to it. The burden is usually a preponderance of evidence. Same with a jury in civil case.

So he got the standard of proof wrong: Why is that cause to call him a fucking idiot ?

Dolic, esq.

Go back and read his ramblings?

It's not that he got the burden of proof wrong, it's that he competely ignorant of the judicial system, has no clue why people or frustrated yet criticizes their actions regardless.

Contrary to what Aviann stated there was no trial. There was a grand jury inquiry and they are only empowered to determine a very low burden of proof, they are not a trier of fact in so far as a determination beyond a reasonable doubt.