Michael Brown

[Fael]

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

You're a complete fucking idiot and should never speak again. Grand Jurys are not triers of fact. They exist to soley to determine if there is probable cause which is a very low standard of proof, often cited as a "fair chance" an action or at most 51%.

Officer Wilson may very well be innocent but the decision should have been made by a jury of his peers, not golfing buddies of the DA.

The citizens of Furgeson were robbed of due proceeds rights.

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

[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

[BulletCatcher]

Feel the burn Duckwalk. This is why you should not run your mouth about things you know nothing about. Aint that right Hateraid... you fucking wannabe. We could just try Officer Wilson because that's what the masses want... Anyone else want another George Zimmerman thing to occur?

[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?

[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 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.

[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 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.