Michael Brown

[Portasaurus]

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

Anyone else want another George Zimmerman thing to occur?

At least with Zimmerman we got a public trial, where everyone was fed the same information at the same time in a digestible fashion over the course of several weeks.

It allowed everyone to better cope with the end result, and you didn't see Florida catch fire that day, did you?

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

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

At least with Zimmerman we got a public trial, where everyone was fed the same information at the same time in a digestible fashion over the course of several weeks.

It allowed everyone to better cope with the end result, and you didn't see Florida catch fire that day, did you?

What the fuck planet do you live on?

Do you have a simple lapse in memory.

or are you full-blown drinking the kool-aid?

[BulletCatcher]

The process has played out. The forensic examiner's evaluation is set in stone. Darren Wilson will not be tried. Michael Brown acted in a way that resulted in his death. Its a sad story for everyone involved. No winners here today, expect the internet trolls who want to stomp their ignorant conjectures around with even more ignorant ideas that do nothing more than disseminate hysteria.

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

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

The process has played out. The forensic examiner's evaluation is set in stone. Darren Wilson will not be tried. Michael Brown acted in a way that resulted in his death. Its a sad story for everyone involved. No winners here today, expect the internet trolls who want to stomp their ignorant conjectures around with even more ignorant ideas that do nothing more than disseminate hysteria.

Ill seminate your hysteria.

[Duckwalk]

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

Michael Brown acted in a way that resulted in his death. Its a sad story for everyone involved.

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.

Obviously, the Grand Jury may have been shown evidence exculpating Officer Wilson which under normal circumstances would never happen as the prosecutor alone basically has sole discretion over that evidence and the potential defendant very little rights but in this case the DA essentially put on a defense case.

Furthermore this basicslly only happens for police officers. If you don't see how this would frustrate people then I don't know what to say to you.

[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

[Duckwalk]

And of course there was never any doubt about the second issues, no one is arguing that.

[Fael]

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.

[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.