Michael Brown

[Fael]

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

This is exactly what I'm talking about. This isn't for the Grand Jury to decide as there is easily enough allegation/evidence publicly available to cast doubt on issues WHICH ESSENTIALLY MEETS THE BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED FOR AN INDICTMENT

See, this is not accurate. You are not thinking about it correctly. Let me see if I can explain:

I think that you would agree that if the only evidence that was available was that Brown attempted to grab his gun, hit him, ran away, then turned back and charged him; there would not be reasonable grounds for a jury showing caution to convict the officer. In such a case, there is not probable cause to believe he committed murder.

The problem here is that there is other evidence in form of witness testimony that he was shot with his hands up, that he was shot in the back, etc.

You seem to think that all the is required is that there be substantial evidence available to support a finding. However that is the standard of review for challenging probable cause; not the standard for the jury to find probable cause.

Here the jury was charged with taking all the evidence in, and assessing the physical evidence; and at least 9 of the 12 found that credible evidence did not support indictment.

You can disagree with that all you want. But that's about the most fair way to determine whether to charge someone.

Dolic

[Duckwalk]

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

See, this is not accurate. You are not thinking about it correctly. Let me see if I can explain:

I think that you would agree that if the only evidence that was available was that Brown attempted to grab his gun, hit him, ran away, then turned back and charged him; there would not be reasonable grounds for a jury showing caution to convict the officer. In such a case, there is not probable cause to believe he committed murder.

The problem here is that there is other evidence in form of witness testimony that he was shot with his hands up, that he was shot in the back, etc.

You seem to think that all the is required is that there be substantial evidence available to support a finding. However that is the standard of review for challenging probable cause; not the standard for the jury to find probable cause.

Here the jury was charged with taking all the evidence in, and assessing the physical evidence; and at least 9 of the 12 found that credible evidence did not support indictment.

You can disagree with that all you want. But that's about the most fair way to determine whether to charge someone.

Dolic