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.

[Duckwalk]

Also I find Aviann as obnoxious as Altari so maybe I'm quick to rip on him.

R&F needs an edit function.

[Faron]

tldr 50 pages of armchair lawyers. Guy robs. Guy resists arrest. Guy gets shot. Sympathy factor hovering steady around zero. Left media race baiting and inciting riots. Standard dem procedure.

[Duckwalk]

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

tldr 50 pages of armchair lawyers. Guy robs. Guy resists arrest. Guy gets shot. Sympathy factor hovering steady around zero. Left media race baiting and inciting riots. Standard dem procedure.

Its been a slow work week

[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?

[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

[Portasaurus]

This is what happens when you find a stranger in the alps.

[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

[Nuktari]

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

fuck the system, ur all wrong, burn it down.

[Duckwalk]

God damn iPhone.

Witness testimony is available to the Grand Jury. Those eye witness reports are available to the Grand Jury. I think you're missing the point I'm making.

The Prosecutor controls the inquiry and although the Grand Jury can ask to speak to people it's the Prosector who decided which evidence to present.

If this was a private citizen, the indictment would have taken an hour or two as there is easily enough evidence indict based on witness testimony alone. The Grand Jury can literally ask the Prosecutor what to do.

However, this was not the case here. The potential defendant was afforded numerous rights essentially never given out to private citizens. The DA basicslly put on the defenses case for them.

The issue is that a Grand Jury is not adversarial. There is a reason so few police officers are indicted.