Michael Brown

[iruinedyourday]

It's pretty simple solition, the police force needs to be held accountable for it's actions.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6264746

A police officer shouldn't be in a position of complete immunity. It's just absurd.

[Orruar]

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

the goal of trolling is to make the other person mad, not make them question whether you are a member of the vegetable kingdom

Vegetables are part of the plant kingdom. Get your biological taxonomy right or gtfo of RNF.

[Duckwalk]

Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.

"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880).

As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."

The evidence presented in both the Brown and Garner cases easily rise the the level of probable cause. The exculpatory evidence and affirmative defenses are for a trial jury to decide.

DAs have too much of a vested interest in not prosecuting local law enforcement.

[Duckwalk]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...on-grand-jury/

[Orruar]

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

The evidence presented in both the Brown and Garner cases easily rise the the level of probable cause.

We need to disband all grand juries and have Duckwalk take over. He clearly knows what's what without the pesky requirement of actually sitting through the case presented to the grand jury.

[Lictor]

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

Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.

"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880).

As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."

The evidence presented in both the Brown and Garner cases easily rise the the level of probable cause. The exculpatory evidence and affirmative defenses are for a trial jury to decide.

DAs have too much of a vested interest in not prosecuting local law enforcement.

You are going to need to chop that up and throw in a couple of 'ya feels?' for these clowns to understand that post.

[Duckwalk]

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

We need to disband all grand juries and have Duckwalk take over. He clearly knows what's what without the pesky requirement of actually sitting through the case presented to the grand jury.

Thanks for enlightening us all with your clear understanding of the burden of proof which grand juries operate under and the mechanism through which the prosecutor presents his "case" to them.





Retard

[iruinedyourday]

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

the goal of trolling is to make the other person mad, not make them question whether you are a member of the vegetable kingdom

then why do you post anything at all?

[Duckwalk]

Actually my sarcasm probably flew right over your head so before you get to involved in self congratulations for what you consider a witty and intelligent post, let me spell my point out for you very simply.

As Superme Court Justice Scalia suggests and as happens in the vast majority of other cases ( 99% of the time in federal cases), the prosecutor would have presented only the evidence suggesting that a crime may have taken place, the grand jury would have asked his opinion of the evidence and he would have stated that the evidence was strong indication that a crime had taken place. They would have indicted in both cases.

The end.

The defendants would not have been given the opportunity to testify for multiple hours. The grand jury would not have been presented with contradictory evidence.

That's how it works for private citizen and I can tell you that's the way it works because I witnesed if first hand numerous times as. A law clerk for the DA's office.

[iruinedyourday]

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

We need to disband all grand juries and have Duckwalk take over. He clearly knows what's what without the pesky requirement of actually sitting through the case presented to the grand jury.

haha yea cus the grand jury is surprised of super human individuals incapable of doing their jobs poorly.

What I don't understand is the hypocrisy of the Conservative (or the right or whatever you want to call them) party.

Yes to guns! because the government cant do its job because 1984! Vs. No to police being held accountable! because for some reason this portion of the government is infallible 1984 is just a book!