Michael Brown

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

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

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

Daaaaamn - and Duckwalk is supposedly a lawyer irl how embarrassing.

POPCORN.GIF etc

[Duckwalk]

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

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

Grand Jurys are not triers of fact to the extent that they can determine guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt as was suggested by that clown Aviaan when he said, " someone is trialed for charges against them and found not guilty through evidence" LOL.

I don't expect your average P99 R&F mouth breather to understand the difference between a grand jury and petit jury.

Additional, there is no confusion about the different burdens of proof. I clearly stated that it is a very low burden of proof requiring UP TO 51%. Courts disagree on what constitutes probable cause. Some courts cite it as 30%, 40%, or 51%, however number itself is just an attempt to characterize a complex legal concept into laymans terms.

But please continue citing statutes reinforcing my point about the very low burden of proof a grand jury labored under.

[vaylorie]

Throwing bricks at police, looting, burning down buildings (3 or so thus far), burning vehicles, shooting, shutting down interstates, etc.

It's been 2 hours since they announced the decision. I live in St. Louis and most of these people that have been protesting aren't from Ferguson.

Blow yourself. Bring in the tanks for these morons.

[Bazia]

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

Throwing bricks at police, looting, burning down buildings (3 or so thus far), burning vehicles, shooting, shutting down interstates, etc.

It's been 2 hours since they announced the decision. I live in St. Louis and most of these people that have been protesting aren't from Ferguson.

Blow yourself. Bring in the tanks for these morons.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Aviann]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Supreme]

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

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Thank you Captain Hindsight!

[Lune]

If you take it upon yourselves to rough up store clerks and then get in fisticuffs with police officers, you just might get shot. It's really not that fucking hard, just don't be an ape.

I'd rather see ten more Michael Browns than one more Kyle Dinkheller.

Discussion about police restraint should stem from the murder of an innocent person in a non-threatening setting, not from this ghetto-monkey bullshit.

[baalzy]

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

I'd rather see ten more Michael Browns than one more Kyle Dinkheller.

I wonder how many more potential Brannans are in the making out there as we continue invading countries we have no business being in while simultaneously cutting veterans access to mental health care.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Can Dillon Tailor's case get talked about now?

[Vyal]

Its amazing not one single person actually blamed this on the thing that actually is to blame..
And fuck I hate to say it but
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
...
Think about it, dudes stoned needs blunts so he robs the store stoned gets caught by the clerk his BP goes up, goes into a rage end up going for a cops gun and gets shot.

Butterfly effect..
And not one person is blaming pot, it's monkey this or black person that. Racist shit but this could have happen to anyone who was high enough or drunk enough. A stupid stoner mistake turned into a country wide riot of the racists.