Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tony Stark said:
I think it is is you who don't understand. See above.
Click to expand...
The above only confirmed my suspicions.

I don't think you understand what "due process of law" means either.

Hint: it doesn't mean doing what the lynch mob wants.
 
ProBonoShill said:
In the continuing saga of the beauty Supply shop, the Fire Dept. has abruptly left the scene, not sure why.

CNN reporting several small businesses have been looted.
Click to expand...

ABC News is reporting automatic weapons fire. The admit that they are getting the reports second hand. I hope that the news organizations are not putting out overblown, sensationalistic but poorly sourced information. That sort of thing can really derail emergency responses and make things much worse.

I feel for the people who live in or near the area. Things happen fast, and on the scene reporting tends to be pretty inaccurate. It will be a few weeks before anyone figures out what actually happened tonight.

Also, my internet connection seems slow. I am guessing this might set new records for web traffic, at least domestically.
 
theprestige said:
Appeal to sarcasm? With arguments like that, it's no wonder the Grand Jury didn't indict.
Click to expand...

My personal opinion has nothing to do with the grand jury decision, nor is this post a comment on the decision. Again, when an officer draws his weapon and kills an unarmed person, I would like a little more evidence they didn't over react. I said the other day there would be a no bill, no surprise there.
 
Iamafalser said:
Your hindsight is truly awesome. Pat yourself on the back.

Aside from people involved in the investigation and the GJ members, nobody knew the entire body of evidence until today nor did anyone know what the decision of the GJ would be.

ETA: It took the GJ two days to reach a decision. Hardly sounds like a slam dunk to me.
Click to expand...

Their tactics at the very least made charges less likely. I knew this when they first announced it and I guarantee they did too.

WildCat said:
The above only confirmed my suspicions.

I don't think you understand what "due process of law" means either.

Hint: it doesn't mean doing what the lynch mob wants.
Click to expand...

Limited constitutional rights

The prosecutor is not obliged to present evidence in favor of those being investigated.[42]

Individuals subject to grand jury proceedings do not have a Sixth Amendment constitutional right to counsel in the grand jury room,[43][44] nor do they have a Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. Additionally, individuals in grand jury proceedings can be charged with holding the court in contempt (punishable with incarceration for the remaining term of the grand jury) if they refuse to appear before the jury.[2] Media is not allowed.[45] Furthermore, all evidence is presented by a prosecutor in a cloak of secrecy, as the prosecutor, grand jurors, and the grand jury stenographer are prohibited from disclosing what happened before the grand jury unless ordered to do so in a judicial proceeding.


...

Rubber stamp for the prosecution

According to the American Bar Association (ABA), the grand jury has come under increasing criticism for being a mere "rubber stamp" for the prosecution without adequate procedural safeguards. Critics argue that the grand jury has largely lost its historic role as an independent bulwark protecting citizens from unfounded accusations by the government.[48] Grand juries provide little protection to accused suspects and are much more useful to prosecutors
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States#Criticism

You were saying...
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
Their tactics at the very least made charges less likely. I knew this from when they first announced it and I guarantee they did too.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States#Criticism

You were saying...
Click to expand...

Anyone looking at the evidence presented to the GJ, cannot reasonably argue that the process was biased in any way, imo.

http://apps.stlpublicradio.org/ferguson-project/evidence.html

The GJ had a fair shot to indict Wilson.

There just wasn't any evidence to do so.

Meaning there also wasn't any evidence for a prosecutor to run with.

Or to get past a PC hearing with.
 
theprestige said:
The way OJ's detractors rioted when that verdict came in, you mean?
Click to expand...

Could you remind me of when OJ's detractors spent weeks getting attacked by police who essentially laid siege to their town? Or when the supposed prosecutor walked up and blamed the (then nonexistant) social media?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom