What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.

Gurtholfin said:
If the grand jury findings show that there was no crime committed, w t f are these morons gonna be protesting?


I just love that people will be protesting that an innocent man isn't being prosecuted for the crime that he didn't commit.

Assuming of course that there is no indictment.
Click to expand...

Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt =/= innocent.
 
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.

trixR4kids said:
Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt =/= innocent.
Click to expand...


We won't get to that if there is no indictment. What you meant is that the lack of an indictment doesn't necessarily mean that no crime was committed - just that the grand jury didn't feel there was enough evidence to proceed with a trial.


Do you believe that the grand jury is biased for the cop in this case?

If so, what evidence could you cite to make your case regarding their bias?


If not, will you not respect the legal process and defer to the grand jury's findings?
 
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.

Gurtholfin said:
We won't get to that if there is no indictment. What you meant is that the lack of an indictment doesn't necessarily mean that no crime was committed - just that the grand jury didn't feel there was enough evidence to proceed with a trial.


Do you believe that the grand jury is biased for the cop in this case?

If so, what evidence could you cite to make your case regarding their bias?


If not, will you not respect the legal process and defer to the grand jury's findings?
Click to expand...
I already made my feelings clear about the decision to go to a grand jury and the prosecutor's record in these types of cases (and his "unconventional", to put it nicely, approach to this one).

goldy_331 said:
In most states the grand juries don't have to reach the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Click to expand...
I guess all I was trying to express was that I didn't really agree with the term "innocent" in this instance, kinda like I didn't in regards to Zimmerman.
 
Last edited:
Gurtholfin said:
We won't get to that if there is no indictment. What you meant is that the lack of an indictment doesn't necessarily mean that no crime was committed - just that the grand jury didn't feel there was enough evidence to proceed with a trial.


Do you believe that the grand jury is biased for the cop in this case?

If so, what evidence could you cite to make your case regarding their bias?


If not, will you not respect the legal process and defer to the grand jury's findings?
Click to expand...

In fairness, most grand juries are inherently biased towards the cops because they're run by the local county attorney/prosecutor. There's no right to cross examination, the defendant doesn't get to be there, most grand jury proceedings are confidential, etc. Now things are a little turned around here, but it's commonly believed that prosecutors often throw the case when it involves charges against cops because they have to work with them daily.

That having been said, it doesn't mean their decision to not indict(which is what everyone is expecting and worried about) is necessarily wrong. Again, the lack of any DOJ proceedings speaks volumes.
 
Last edited:
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.

Would the DOJ ever wait to take action until after a grand jury's decision has been released?
 
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.

Assuming they refuse to indict, those grand jury members are going to need their identities concealed. And that STILL might not stop someone dedicated from figuring it out. I'd be in a car on the way out of the state the second I left the courthouse.
 
St. Clown said:
Would the DOJ ever wait to take action until after a grand jury's decision has been released?
Click to expand...

Would they? Sure, I'm sure it's happened at some point. But I doubt it's a regular occurrence, since the feds would be looking at different laws and are likely working on their own independent timetable. But this isn't some complex financial litigation; from a legal standpoint it's fairly straightforward. Was the shooting justified? It's doubtful that the feds are waiting for some key piece if evidence to appear. Either there's nothing there anyway, or the feds don't have enough to say something's there.
 
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.

unofan said:
Would they? Sure, I'm sure it's happened at some point. But I doubt it's a regular occurrence, since the feds would be looking at different laws and are likely working on their own independent timetable. But this isn't some complex financial litigation; from a legal standpoint it's fairly straightforward. Was the shooting justified? It's doubtful that the feds are waiting for some key piece if evidence to appear. Either there's nothing there anyway, or the feds don't have enough to say something's there.
Click to expand...

Isn't it also true that the standards for prosecution in a federal civil rights action are higher? Which is why we seldom see them?
 
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.

unofan said:
Would they? Sure, I'm sure it's happened at some point. But I doubt it's a regular occurrence, since the feds would be looking at different laws and are likely working on their own independent timetable. But this isn't some complex financial litigation; from a legal standpoint it's fairly straightforward. Was the shooting justified? It's doubtful that the feds are waiting for some key piece if evidence to appear. Either there's nothing there anyway, or the feds don't have enough to say something's there.
Click to expand...

Would they conduct a civil rights review, as with this case?
 
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.

Regardless of how this plays out. Indictment or not. Rioting or not. The professional agitators and race pimps and communists who have flocked to Ferguson want violence. They aren't in the business of encouraging people to peacefully exert their First Amendment rights to be unhappy with what the grand jury decides. They want women and children clubbed, hand cuffed, arrested and if possible, shot by "out of control cops." They want Ferguson set ablaze. They want what might happen in Ferguson to be as ugly and violent as possible. And they've been working like boll weevils for the past several months to turn their desires into reality.
 
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.

Twitch Boy said:
Assuming they refuse to indict, those grand jury members are going to need their identities concealed. And that STILL might not stop someone dedicated from figuring it out. I'd be in a car on the way out of the state the second I left the courthouse.
Click to expand...

They're going to need anonymity no matter what they decide, but I'd be more worried about the crazies on the other side.
 
Re: Nice Planet #8: You People Make Me Sick.

Kepler said:
They're going to need anonymity no matter what they decide, but I'd be more worried about the crazies on the other side.
Click to expand...

Those are tough images to get out of your mind, all right. White folks rioting after the O J verdict or the cops were acquitted in Simi Valley. It's clear the black residents of Ferguson who may have seen the fatal confrontation between Brown and the cop differently from the conventional wisdom have much to fear from white mobs.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top