Reply With Quote
You s make good minions though. Making up rather than addressing the obvious conflict of interest.
Regurgitating GWH and Memphis Grizzlies marketing. That is the capacity of the midget.
You wish you could show that I am not as smart as I think I am. Gonna have to do better than that, Francis.
You s make good minions though. Making up rather than addressing the obvious conflict of interest.
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.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...on-grand-jury/
iow, Wilson's buddy the prosecutor screwed the Grand Jury process to make sure the murderer got away.
Respublica v. Shaffer had to do with calling a list of witnesses proposed by the defendant... not the defendant himself.
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.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...on-grand-jury/
iow, Wilson's buddy the prosecutor screwed the Grand Jury process to make sure the murderer got away.
at you of all people taking Scalia's words to the bank
Last edited by spurraider21; 11-26-2014 at 10:23 PM.
Cops seemed to be in a life threatening situation here. Shooting justified:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...r-rice-n256656
Respublica v. Shaffer had to do with calling a list of witnesses proposed by the defendant... not the defendant himself.
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.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...on-grand-jury/
iow, Wilson's buddy the prosecutor screwed the Grand Jury process to make sure the murderer got away.
at you of all people taking Scalia's words to the bank.
What else would you expect from thinkprogress.borg. smh
Yeah, never heard the term before.
I don't think the prosecutor claimed he was acting pursuant to any right held by the defendant.Respublica v. Shaffer had to do with calling a list of witnesses proposed by the defendant... not the defendant himself.
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.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...on-grand-jury/
iow, Wilson's buddy the prosecutor screwed the Grand Jury process to make sure the murderer got away.
What else would you expect from thinkprogress.borg. smh
The problem for Michael Brown's supporter is that there just wasn't any incriminating evidence to present. The prosecutor gave the Grand Jury everything and, in their judgement, the evidence added up to a no bill.
FuzzyLumpkins is privy to evidence that was held back from the grand jury. He's got an insider that goes by the name Shaun King.
That one either.
conservatives and n!gg@ haters always love this kind of lynching lawyering
St. Louis Grand Jury Indicted, Tried, And Convicted Unarmed Murder Victim Michael Brown
An Arraignment is a formal reading of a criminal charging do ent in the presence of the defendant to inform the defendant of the charges against him or her. Accordingly, in response to arraignment, the accused (defendant) is expected to enter a plea, such as guilty or not guilty, or through their defense counsel, enter peremptory pleas laying out reasons why a trial cannot and should not proceed. A judge then determines if there is adequate evidence to bind the defendant over for a jury trial. To save time, it is not unusual for a Superior court judge to convene a criminal “Grand Jury” that hears prosecution evidence for why the accused should face charges and be judged by a jury of their peers. A grand jury does not decide guilt or innocence; just if there is enough evidence for a jury trial.
Apparently, the St. Louis County Prosecutor, Bob McCulloch, tasked with setting out reasons and evidence why an accused murderer, Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, should be indicted and bound over for trial decided to use the grand jury to mount a robust defense for the accused murderer. Not only did the prosecutor succeed in acquitting the murderer Darren Wilson, he convinced the grand jury to indict, try, and convict the unarmed murder victim Michael Brown.
Throughout the reporting on the progress of the St. Louis county grand jury looking into whether the prosecution had enough evidence to indict, and hold over for trial, murderer Darren Wilson, there were “rumors” that Wilson gave extensive testimony in front of the grand jury against the unarmed African American teen he gunned down.
The rumors were so incredibly unbelievable that one could not help but think they were just that; fallacious rumors spread by an ignorant press. As a citizen that has sat on two separate, year-long, criminal grand juries 12 years apart, it was beyond comprehension that a defendant would ever testify in front of the grand jury. It just does not, and never does, happen; at least not over the course of 27 different cases before the grand jury this author sat on.
At best, and at the prosecuting district attorney’s discretion, they may present exculpatory evidence that are “guesses” at what a defense attorney will present to convince the trial jury the accused is innocent; exculpatory evidence is unusual, and not mandatory, and precisely why a grand jury almost always indicts the accused.
What is curious, indeed, is why the members of the St. Louis grand jury did not immediately appeal to the St. Louis county presiding Superior Court judge and report that the prosecutor was presenting evidence in the form of the accused’s testimony that Michael Brown was on trial and guilty. Prior to hearing evidence for why the accused should stand trial, a prosecutor’s job is informing members of the jury their only job is deciding if there is sufficient evidence to send the defendant to trial; not to determine guilt or innocence, and particularly not to find the accused not guilty.
Since the announcement that the grand jury indicted, tried, and convicted murder victim Michael Brown and found Darren Wilson innocent of gunning down the unarmed teenager, myriad legal experts, including the National Bar Association, have railed on the decision going so far as to call on the Justice Department to conduct a legitimate investigation.
In fact, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in a 1992 Supreme Court case he elucidated that the role of a grand jury for hundreds of years has not been “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. 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.”
Compared to Scalia’s explanation of what a grand jury, and prosecutor’s, job is, it is worth looking at McCulloch’s final instructions before deliberations.
He said, “You must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence.” These were not comments of a prosecutor seeking an indictment, but of defense counsel seeking “upon what foundation [the charges may be] denied.”
From the start of the sham investigation into the racially motivated, cold-blooded, murder of unarmed Michael Brown, the prosecutor was -bent on acquitting Darren Wilson and indicting, trying, and convicting Michael Brown; Wilson executed Brown prior to the grand jury’s indictment, trial, and conviction. What is telling about the rampant racism and hatred toward people of color in America is the high level of support for Wilson and vile remarks against the unarmed murder victim, Michael Brown that followed the Wilson acquittal.
The only consolation, and it will turn out to be just that, for Michael Brown’s family, the African American community in and around Ferguson, and sickened Americans across the nation is that they are not the only people outraged at the “show trial” to acquit Wilson the grand jury put on.
Without a federal investigation, the entire world will know what a majority of Americans already are aware of; like everything in America, the criminal justice system, including the courts, are heavily tilted against people of color.
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/11/...iticus+USA+%29
cheap political hack Scalia, typical bag nominee by Repugs, has probably forgotten or at least regrets he ever wrote his explanation of a prosecutor's role before a grand jury.
Reefer madness: Prosecutors mentioned Mike Brown’s pot use 44 times in grand jury hearings
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/r...e+Raw+Story%29
The One Word That Kept Darren Wilson Out Of Jail
But even if you accept Wilson’s account word-for-word, he only gets off because enough people found his actions “reasonable” under the cir stances. Since Wilson used lethal force, he acted “reasonably” if he “reasonably” believed his life was in danger.
What does “reasonable” mean? It means whatever we say it means. Ultimately our answer of what reasonable conduct entails is not defined by law, but a reflection of society’s majoritarian norms.
These norms can and do change. For example, women asserting self-defense against their husbands used to be prohibited from discussing prior acts of violence by their husbands in court. Such acts were not viewed as relevant when determining whether a woman’s actions were reasonable under the cir stances. But over time, that changed and prior acts of violence by the husband can be used as part of a successful self-defense claim by a battered spouse.
Was Wilson acting reasonably?
He testified that Brown looked like a demon. A demon is a supernatural being associated with the devil. ( police union lawyers
coaching)
Is it reasonable for Wilson to perceive Brown, who was actually an 18-year-old human, in this manner?
Is it reasonable for such a perception to contribute to fear that ultimately justified taking Brown’s life?
Wilson also testified thatas he struck Brown with bullets he appeared to be “bulking up” to “run through the shots.” ( police union lawyers coaching)
This seems like a common thing to happen in a science fiction novel. But is it a reasonable interpretation of the threat Brown posed to him, one that could justify continuing to shoot until Brown was struck fatally in the head?
The grand jury, in a flawed process, decided Wilson’s fear was reasonable. Many legal observers, however, think it was very likely Wilson would have been acquitted in an actual trial, and they are probably right.
But it has as much to do with our societal norms around police officers as the law itself. As a society, we are likely to give police officers the benefit of the doubt, even if they claim their victim was a demon who got stronger as he riddled his body with bullets.
There is nothing inherent in the nature of “reasonableness” or the law that makes things that way. In the United Kingdom, for examples, what cons utes a “reasonable” situation for the police to fire a weapon is much different. Many police officers in the U.K. don’t even carry firearms.
British citizens are 100 times less likely to be shot by the police than Americans. Faced with a potential threat, British police officers are far more likely to engage in negotiation or use non-deadly force.
But we have a different definition of “reasonable” conduct in the United States. Our definition of that word, as much as any law, is what is keeping Darren Wilson from being held accountable for the killing of Michael Brown.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...n-out-of-jail/
The reasonable bar for a chick , less loser of a white cop is extremely low.
Blacks really don't stand a chance, even 12 year old blacks with toy guns shot in 2 seconds after cops drove next to him.
And SCOTUS5 RULES that "things have changed since the VRA '60s". yep, police have a LOT more and better weapons to shoot blacks with.
crofl. i've been in law school for about 4 months and "reasonable" is among the most used words i've encountered.
African-American man stopped by Michigan cop for walking with his hands in his pockets
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/a...e+Raw+Story%29
bizarrely, black guy was not tazed nor murdered.
smart guy. calmly took out a camera, was respectable, didn't escalate the situation, and nothing came of it. more people should follow those traits
so a brotha can't even shield his hands from the cold without some geek calling the cops. you must be kidding me.
We don't like it when you do that. So stop whining about it and get a pair of gloves. We would prefer that you buy the gloves instead of stealing them. Thank you.
that guy should be a role model. he handled the situation properly and courteously and the closest thing the cop did to assaulting him was giving him that gay high 5.
instead he could have started shouting " this i didnt do nuffing you ing pig" and started . good thing he didn't. he's a role model for the community
he handled it just like most people. only difference is the cop wasn't the usual cop s that kills unarmed citizens. this vid should be sent to police departments across the united states to show policeman you don't have to pull out your weapon or threaten violence when the suspect poses no threat. hats off to that cop.
sean bell, oscar grant, amadou dialo never said this pig and they were gunned down. doesn't really matter what a person says...its all on the cop.
he was compliant, answered questions, was calm and kept his cool. more people should be like him, instead of reaching for a guys weapon, neglecting commands, etc.
St. Louis police officers’ group demands Rams players be disciplined for ‘hands up, don’t shoot’
the St. Louis Police Officers Association condemned the display, calling it “tasteless, offensive and inflammatory.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/st-louis-police-officers-group-demands-rams-players-be-disciplined-for-hands-up-dont-shoot/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
