Ferguson Grand Jury Spin

[Cassandro]

Last night, the Brown family attorney (whom I like) put forth a clever argument that the Grand Jury proceeding was tainted because the prosecutor did not submit recommended charges along with the evidence. This, of course, presupposes that the prosecutor had already determined that probable cause existed and was only seeking Grand Jury confirmation. In reality, the greater likelihood is that the prosecutor found no probable cause but didn't want to be accused of personal bias in this matter. The Grand Jury's vote will be interesting...

 

[chikenwing]

Its a scary thing putting your life in the hands of a dozen people.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Last night, the Brown family attorney (whom I like) put forth a clever argument that the Grand Jury proceeding was tainted because the prosecutor did not submit recommended charges along with the evidence.

That's because a Prosecuter works with the Grand Jury to decide whether to bring Criminal Charges OR and Indictment.

And even if he doesn't get it, he can go before a Judge and ask for a Trial if he thinks he has a strong enough case.

And it appears as though though they don't have a strong enough case.

 

[dannyboys]

Last night, the Brown family attorney (whom I like) put forth a clever argument that the Grand Jury proceeding was tainted because the prosecutor did not submit recommended charges along with the evidence. This, of course, presupposes that the prosecutor had already determined that probable cause existed and was only seeking Grand Jury confirmation. In reality, the greater likelihood is that the prosecutor found no probable cause but didn't want to be accused of personal bias in this matter. The Grand Jury's vote will be interesting...

So now I'm sure you will post the "recommended charges" and who recommended these mysterious charges.
Waiting.
BTW. Crump has been tapped to replace 'Rev. Al. on MSNBC

 

[emilynghiem]

If people want a "public trial" why not just post ALL the information publicly?

Post ALL the information about the crime committed prior to the shooting.

Post BOTH sides of the stories and let people work it out from there.

Maybe we need total transparency. There is nothing to hide, so why act like it
and get people worked up over nothing.

The Martin - Zimmerman issue should have been laid out in the open,
showing ALL the sides from ALL the media so people can see the big picture.

Open up the doors, don't close them in people's faces and then wonder why there's a stampede to break them down.

 

[Cassandro]

So much for an intelligent discussion...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If people want a "public trial" why not just post ALL the information publicly?

Post ALL the information about the crime committed prior to the shooting.

Post BOTH sides of the stories and let people work it out from there.

Maybe we need total transparency. There is nothing to hide, so why act like it
and get people worked up over nothing.

The Martin - Zimmerman issue should have been laid out in the open,
showing ALL the sides from ALL the media so people can see the big picture.

Open up the doors, don't close them in people's faces and then wonder why there's a stampede to break them down.

Our legal system is not a game of public opinion. That you think a legal system should be speaks volumes as to your intelligence.

 

[whitehall]

Don't you think "recommending charges" would taint the Grand Jury? The G.J. isn't enpowered to determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant. It merely determines if a felony was committed.

 

[emilynghiem]

If people want a "public trial" why not just post ALL the information publicly?

Post ALL the information about the crime committed prior to the shooting.

Post BOTH sides of the stories and let people work it out from there.

Maybe we need total transparency. There is nothing to hide, so why act like it
and get people worked up over nothing.

The Martin - Zimmerman issue should have been laid out in the open,
showing ALL the sides from ALL the media so people can see the big picture.

Open up the doors, don't close them in people's faces and then wonder why there's a stampede to break them down.

Our legal system is not a game of public opinion. That you think a legal system should be speaks volumes as to your intelligence.

No but the legal system IS skewed where justice IS bought and sold.
Only people who can AFFORD legal help can buy their defenses.

Even LAWYERS I know admit the system is GAMED!

Look up OJ's case, the lawyers Robert Durst bought to get out of murder charges,
the rappers like R Kelly and others who had legal teams that other people don't have.

Similar to the Catholic Church that SOLD indulgences to get out of sins,
the legal system buys and sells freedom from crime if you can afford
a fancy lawyer who can "introduce doubt" while you take the "fifth amendment"
and they can't prove you guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" so you're free.

All bought and sold, everyone knows this.
My godmother is a lawyer and knows the system is political.
A judge that has certain backing is not going to go against the corporate lawyers.
It takes an act of God to get any justice, so you have to look to God and not
look to the courts or you'd go crazy confusing what's right and wrong.

What I mean by transparency is the whole public shoudl have full knowledge
of what the jury sees so they understand the decision. This is where the
Martin-Zimmerman case went wrong with skewing the perception in the media
and hiding information so it looked onesided. And now the media hype in this
case is doing the same thing, framing one side and making the other look innocent
when that may not be the information given to the jury. So we need to be consistent
or we think there is some "conspiracy" to twist the truth, let's agree what the truth is
and then we can see if it is twisted or not.

The legal system should follow what is truth and so should the public so we are on the same page.

Neither should be twisted but that's what's happening if we don't share sources and get the story straight.

In Texas at least, there was a court ruling that basically said the truth in a criminal case
depended on what was established in court, and not whether he was truly innocent in real life.

So we just need to make sure that if we find people guilty, this really is consisent with real life
and is not hyped up by the media.

Transparency would prevent the media twisting.
That's what I mean, not the opposite!

Sorry if this wasn't clear!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If people want a "public trial" why not just post ALL the information publicly?

Post ALL the information about the crime committed prior to the shooting.

Post BOTH sides of the stories and let people work it out from there.

Maybe we need total transparency. There is nothing to hide, so why act like it
and get people worked up over nothing.

The Martin - Zimmerman issue should have been laid out in the open,
showing ALL the sides from ALL the media so people can see the big picture.

Open up the doors, don't close them in people's faces and then wonder why there's a stampede to break them down.

Our legal system is not a game of public opinion. That you think a legal system should be speaks volumes as to your intelligence.

No but the legal system IS skewed where justice IS bought and sold.
Only people who can AFFORD legal help can buy their defenses.

Even LAWYERS I know admit the system is GAMED!

Look up OJ's case, the lawyers Robert Durst bought to get out of murder charges,
the rappers like R Kelly and others who had legal teams that other people don't have.

Similar to the Catholic Church that SOLD indulgences to get out of sins,
the legal system buys and sells freedom from crime if you can afford
a fancy lawyer who can "introduce doubt" while you take the "fifth amendment"
and they can't prove you guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" so you're free.

All bought and sold, everyone knows this.
My godmother is a lawyer and knows the system is political.
A judge that has certain backing is not going to go against the corporate lawyers.
It takes an act of God to get any justice, so you have to look to God and not
look to the courts or you'd go crazy confusing what's right and wrong.

What I mean by transparency is the whole public shoudl have full knowledge
of what the jury sees so they understand the decision. This is where the
Martin-Zimmerman case went wrong with skewing the perception in the media
and hiding information so it looked onesided. And now the media hype in this
case is doing the same thing, framing one side and making the other look innocent
when that may not be the information given to the jury. So we need to be consistent
or we think there is some "conspiracy" to twist the truth, let's agree what the truth is
and then we can see if it is twisted or not.

The legal system should follow what is truth and so should the public so we are on the same page.

Neither should be twisted but that's what's happening if we don't share sources and get the story straight.

In Texas at least, there was a court ruling that basically said the truth in a criminal case
depended on what was established in court, and not whether he was truly innocent in real life.

So we just need to make sure that if we find people guilty, this really is consisent with real life
and is not hyped up by the media.

Transparency would prevent the media twisting.
That's what I mean, not the opposite!

Sorry if this wasn't clear!

If you mean the public is being inundated with the story that Brown was an innocent unarmed teen murdered by a racist white cop then you would be right.

 

[Publius1787]

Its a scary thing putting your life in the hands of a dozen people.

Correction. Only 9 of the 12 needed for an indictment.

 

[Publius1787]

Last night, the Brown family attorney (whom I like) put forth a clever argument that the Grand Jury proceeding was tainted because the prosecutor did not submit recommended charges along with the evidence. This, of course, presupposes that the prosecutor had already determined that probable cause existed and was only seeking Grand Jury confirmation. In reality, the greater likelihood is that the prosecutor found no probable cause but didn't want to be accused of personal bias in this matter. The Grand Jury's vote will be interesting...

They will get a list of instructions before they go into deliberation. Knowing how much of a hotbed issue this is the judge will be sure to personally instruct them that they alone can determine probable cause and they alone can determine the charge.

 

[Publius1787]

If people want a "public trial" why not just post ALL the information publicly?

Post ALL the information about the crime committed prior to the shooting.

Post BOTH sides of the stories and let people work it out from there.

Maybe we need total transparency. There is nothing to hide, so why act like it
and get people worked up over nothing.

The Martin - Zimmerman issue should have been laid out in the open,
showing ALL the sides from ALL the media so people can see the big picture.

Open up the doors, don't close them in people's faces and then wonder why there's a stampede to break them down.

Our legal system is not a game of public opinion. That you think a legal system should be speaks volumes as to your intelligence.

No but the legal system IS skewed where justice IS bought and sold.
Only people who can AFFORD legal help can buy their defenses.

Even LAWYERS I know admit the system is GAMED!

Look up OJ's case, the lawyers Robert Durst bought to get out of murder charges,
the rappers like R Kelly and others who had legal teams that other people don't have.

Similar to the Catholic Church that SOLD indulgences to get out of sins,
the legal system buys and sells freedom from crime if you can afford
a fancy lawyer who can "introduce doubt" while you take the "fifth amendment"
and they can't prove you guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" so you're free.

All bought and sold, everyone knows this.
My godmother is a lawyer and knows the system is political.
A judge that has certain backing is not going to go against the corporate lawyers.
It takes an act of God to get any justice, so you have to look to God and not
look to the courts or you'd go crazy confusing what's right and wrong.

What I mean by transparency is the whole public shoudl have full knowledge
of what the jury sees so they understand the decision. This is where the
Martin-Zimmerman case went wrong with skewing the perception in the media
and hiding information so it looked onesided. And now the media hype in this
case is doing the same thing, framing one side and making the other look innocent
when that may not be the information given to the jury. So we need to be consistent
or we think there is some "conspiracy" to twist the truth, let's agree what the truth is
and then we can see if it is twisted or not.

The legal system should follow what is truth and so should the public so we are on the same page.

Neither should be twisted but that's what's happening if we don't share sources and get the story straight.

In Texas at least, there was a court ruling that basically said the truth in a criminal case
depended on what was established in court, and not whether he was truly innocent in real life.

So we just need to make sure that if we find people guilty, this really is consisent with real life
and is not hyped up by the media.

Transparency would prevent the media twisting.
That's what I mean, not the opposite!

Sorry if this wasn't clear!

Kinda hard to buy yourself out of an indictment. Either the evidence exists or it does not. In the interim, the prosecutions choice to submit all of the evidence and witnesses makes a trial even harder because of the increased probability the defense will successfully impeach the witnesses testimony at trial. As shown in the Travon Martin case by example of Rachel Jeantel, uneducated thugs who hang out with and thugs are easily impeachable.

 

[Publius1787]

Last night, the Brown family attorney (whom I like) put forth a clever argument that the Grand Jury proceeding was tainted because the prosecutor did not submit recommended charges along with the evidence. This, of course, presupposes that the prosecutor had already determined that probable cause existed and was only seeking Grand Jury confirmation. In reality, the greater likelihood is that the prosecutor found no probable cause but didn't want to be accused of personal bias in this matter. The Grand Jury's vote will be interesting...

So now I'm sure you will post the "recommended charges" and who recommended these mysterious charges.
Waiting.
BTW. Crump has been tapped to replace 'Rev. Al. on MSNBC

In this case the prosecution has left it to the Grand Jury to pick any or all of these charges. Will Officer Darren Wilson be Indicted Place Your Bets Here US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Publius1787]

Don't you think "recommending charges" would taint the Grand Jury? The G.J. isn't enpowered to determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant. It merely determines if a felony was committed.

No, they only determine if there is probable cause to charge the defendant based on the evidence presented. The trial jury determines if a felony has been committed.

 

[Publius1787]

If people want a "public trial" why not just post ALL the information publicly?

Post ALL the information about the crime committed prior to the shooting.

Post BOTH sides of the stories and let people work it out from there.

Maybe we need total transparency. There is nothing to hide, so why act like it
and get people worked up over nothing.

The Martin - Zimmerman issue should have been laid out in the open,
showing ALL the sides from ALL the media so people can see the big picture.

Open up the doors, don't close them in people's faces and then wonder why there's a stampede to break them down.

They should release the information after the grand jury fails to indict, or, after the official trial begins. Too much information with the media spinning it will only taint a jury pool even further than it already has been.

 

[Publius1787]

So much for an intelligent discussion...

Plenty of ignorance to go around here.

 

[Rozman]

There's been a beef against the prosecutor from the start.Something to do with an incident that happened years ago with his father.
But they were fine with all the work he has done in this capacity till now.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Last night, the Brown family attorney (whom I like) put forth a clever argument that the Grand Jury proceeding was tainted because the prosecutor did not submit recommended charges along with the evidence. This, of course, presupposes that the prosecutor had already determined that probable cause existed and was only seeking Grand Jury confirmation. In reality, the greater likelihood is that the prosecutor found no probable cause but didn't want to be accused of personal bias in this matter. The Grand Jury's vote will be interesting...

They will get a list of instructions before they go into deliberation. Knowing how much of a hotbed issue this is the judge will be sure to personally instruct them that they alone can determine probable cause and they alone can determine the charge.

There is no Judge in a Grand Jury. Never has been.

 

[emilynghiem]

If people want a "public trial" why not just post ALL the information publicly?

Post ALL the information about the crime committed prior to the shooting.

Post BOTH sides of the stories and let people work it out from there.

Maybe we need total transparency. There is nothing to hide, so why act like it
and get people worked up over nothing.

The Martin - Zimmerman issue should have been laid out in the open,
showing ALL the sides from ALL the media so people can see the big picture.

Open up the doors, don't close them in people's faces and then wonder why there's a stampede to break them down.

Our legal system is not a game of public opinion. That you think a legal system should be speaks volumes as to your intelligence.

No but the legal system IS skewed where justice IS bought and sold.
Only people who can AFFORD legal help can buy their defenses.

Even LAWYERS I know admit the system is GAMED!

Look up OJ's case, the lawyers Robert Durst bought to get out of murder charges,
the rappers like R Kelly and others who had legal teams that other people don't have.

Similar to the Catholic Church that SOLD indulgences to get out of sins,
the legal system buys and sells freedom from crime if you can afford
a fancy lawyer who can "introduce doubt" while you take the "fifth amendment"
and they can't prove you guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" so you're free.

All bought and sold, everyone knows this.
My godmother is a lawyer and knows the system is political.
A judge that has certain backing is not going to go against the corporate lawyers.
It takes an act of God to get any justice, so you have to look to God and not
look to the courts or you'd go crazy confusing what's right and wrong.

What I mean by transparency is the whole public should have full knowledge
of what the jury sees so they understand the decision. This is where the
Martin-Zimmerman case went wrong with skewing the perception in the media
and hiding information so it looked onesided. And now the media hype in this
case is doing the same thing, framing one side and making the other look innocent
when that may not be the information given to the jury. So we need to be consistent
or we think there is some "conspiracy" to twist the truth, let's agree what the truth is
and then we can see if it is twisted or not.

The legal system should follow what is truth and so should the public so we are on the same page.

Neither should be twisted but that's what's happening if we don't share sources and get the story straight.

In Texas at least, there was a court ruling that basically said the truth in a criminal case
depended on what was established in court, and not whether he was truly innocent in real life.

So we just need to make sure that if we find people guilty, this really is consisent with real life
and is not hyped up by the media.

Transparency would prevent the media twisting.
That's what I mean, not the opposite!

Sorry if this wasn't clear!

Kinda hard to buy yourself out of an indictment. Either the evidence exists or it does not. In the interim, the prosecutions choice to submit all of the evidence and witnesses makes a trial even harder because of the increased probability the defense will successfully impeach the witnesses testimony at trial. As shown in the Travon Martin case by example of Rachel Jeantel, uneducated thugs who hang out with and thugs are easily impeachable.

Seems to me there are two or three different issues here:
1. one is by the law on the defense side, the officer cannot be assumed guilty until proven innocent, so there must be evidence against him in that context.

2. two is by the spirit of the law, given the LARGER context,
if the young man was part of the crime, then the HIGHER laws of justice and karma
are still at work. HOWEVER, our WRITTEN secular laws require "due process of law" and he cannot get the death penalty just for committing such a crime but should go through proper procedures to be convicted in a court of law, and would normally not get the death penalty for such a crime.

So people are emotionally balancing the knowledge and faith in HIGHER laws of justice and karma, by which many are quick to say the young man asked for trouble by causing it, and if he showed no respect for the law than "anything goes" after that point. "He deserved what he got" (by the laws of higher justice or karma, even if this did not follow due process of law but bypassed it and came out worse, people judging by this context will view the case differently)

The written law and oath of Constitution tells officers that even if someone is guilty, there must be respect for due process. But what happens when confrontations blow up before you have a chance at civil due process?

We don't know what happened with threats or defense in the actual confrontation if none of us was there.
I just know it went wrong, and someone got killed.

The REAL tragedy I feel, is that people aren't taught to respect the law but to fear injustice so badly, they feed into it. We set up the process to fail from the beginning, by going into it as unequal. Both sides fearing each other so we never see eye to eye in the first place.

We have long needed to establish an agreed understanding, respect for the law and consent, in order to pursue due process together, on the same side, not as adversaries. But this had never happened; the laws started out treating black populations as property and not as people, and we have come a long way to overcome that stigma and distrust of the law being in the hands of the few, but there is still too much racial division over this issue carried on for generations and never fully healed. Obama has healed some of that for some people, but made it worse for others and this is one of those cases.

Unlike division over Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman inflamed by the media, I see a lot more people in this Ferguson case calling for collaboration on solutions, even the father of Michael Brown pleading for peaceful change and no more property damage or violence. We have a chance to do more this time, so I hope the right people lead and are followed.

I love the people coming out and speaking for change out of compassion and inclusion, not blame and division.

I really pray we listen to one another, as peers standing on equal ground, and never go into another confrontation with both barrels blazing. We need to practice civil due process, quit accusing each other as "guilty until proven innocent" while expecting the opposite, and start undoing all the layers of damage we have stacked up on top of old wounds on both sides.

The Milwaukee police chief also said something that is almost heartbreaking to hear. I think with the right leadership on all sides, we can pull together and rise above as a more mature, responsible nation of citizens when we understand what it takes to stop this violence. We've been growing to this point, and now it's time to act and help each other as equal adults.

The "teenage rebellion" years of American culture are over, the whining enabling victimhood phase. We need to lift each other up and share responsibility for running the household as contributing partners doing our parts, instead of "blaming the parents for what they did to us" when they weren't perfect either. May all the right leadership come forward to unite America.

So we stand beside each other, watch each other's backs, pick each other up before we stumble, and walk with each other through recovery. May we quit this habit of benefiting from the downfall of others, and instead see each victory as our own, each loss as our own, each step toward recovery as our own. No more violence, no more victims.
Just victories as a team.