(10-26-2014 10:14 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-25-2014 02:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Seems one side has found him guilty and the other is waiting to see what the evidence says.

Only one side is showing bias. The other is objective.

More of that "it's not rocket science".

I guess you haven't been hearing all those people who say brown rushed the cop.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Yes, and....


Really cool staff composite ↓

Since violent Left Wing Loons like Lisa Fithian and other radical organizations such as the Socialist Workers Party, New Black Panthers, etc are on the ground in Ferguson and bringing in Reinforcements to cause problems I expect the worst when the Officer is No-Billed.

Then I hope there are indictments for inciting a riot.

And the police shouldn't endanger themselves with silliness like rubber bullets.

And business owners should recruit men of good will to arm themselves and protect property.


Really cool staff composite ↓

Set up cameras now so when the rioters start up their crap the police and judicial system will have positive evidence to arrest or beat down said offenders.

(10-24-2014 08:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 08:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 12:41 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  At the very least 12 of his peers should decide if the police officer committed a crime...

That's what I've been saying all along

Why?

If the evidence does not support prosecution, why do it?

Because they don't care about the evidence.

It's up to the prosecutor to decide if there's ample evidence to indict.. There are two options.. Either research and decide on their own or present the evidence to the Grand Jury and the Grand Jury decides. Unlike a normal trial, a Grand Jury is selected by a judge and they are called to sit and hear evidence on several cases not just one, their sessions can be months long. This Grand Jury was picked months ago. A jury for a trial is picked at the time of trial by the lawyers.

This particular Grand Jury has had it's session extended until January. Bob McCulloch decided to present all evidence and testimony to the Grand Jury. What typically happens in this setting from what I've read, is he basically mediates the entire proceedings, he doesn't interject anything, he presents what's given to him, calls witnesses, they give their testimony and answer questions from the Grand Jury. There is no cross examination. Based on this proceeding the Grand Jury will convene and discuss what they've heard and seen, and decide if they should go to trial.

The last case that circumvented this proceeding and a special prosecutor was brought in was for the Trayvon Martin case that I can recall.. Let me re-phrase that, that's the last time I heard about it. If you bring in a special prosecutor, rush the trial, and don't have all the info available, you'll get the same results.

(10-24-2014 12:57 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 12:45 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 12:41 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  At the very least 12 of his peers should decide if the police officer committed a crime...

and if his peers determine there isn't enough evidence to charge him with a crime???

No locals should be involved...outside prosecutor and grand jury

so you don't really want his peers involved after all...

(10-27-2014 09:39 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 12:57 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 12:45 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 12:41 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  At the very least 12 of his peers should decide if the police officer committed a crime...

and if his peers determine there isn't enough evidence to charge him with a crime???

No locals should be involved...outside prosecutor and grand jury

so you don't really want his peers involved after all...

What I haven't understood yet is why so many people want the decorated officer to fry when the only testimony they've heard is from folks looking for 15 minutes..

(10-27-2014 05:41 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 08:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 08:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 12:41 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  At the very least 12 of his peers should decide if the police officer committed a crime...

That's what I've been saying all along

Why?

If the evidence does not support prosecution, why do it?

Because they don't care about the evidence.

According to whom?