(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...

Isn't the person on trial supposed to have his peers in the jury?

(10-24-2014 04:08 PM)LSU04_08 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...

Isn't the person on trial supposed to have his peers in the jury?

What makes you think a peer has to be local?

1peer noun \ˈpir\
: a person who belongs to the same age group or social group as someone else

: a member of the British nobility

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peer

shouldn't you be in the WWE room? I though you guys hated the "richard simmons room"

And Detroit is guilty of human rights abuses because they've turned the water off on people who haven't paid their bill in 2 years.

And the U.S. is tied with Cuba for the 84th best healthcare system in the world.

No one takes these lefty groups seriously.

(10-24-2014 01:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:27 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 12:57 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  No locals should be involved...outside prosecutor and grand jury

Why isn't the prosecutor handling it now qualified?

Where did I mention qualifications?

Then why deviate from normal procedure and bring in an outside prosecutor?

Back to my original question though, will you be satisfied if a prosecutor and grand jury finds that there isn't enough evidence to charge the officer?

If it's a non-biased, outside, prosecutor and grand jury...yes.

So who, and how, should one decide if the prosecutor and jury are non-biased?

My guess is you'll decide their bias based on the outcome...

(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

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(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?

(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

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

At the very best then, he should be locked up for life with no trial?

(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?

According to whom?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

the system?

(10-24-2014 10:24 PM)Fitbud 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?

According to whom?

According to the evidence.

(10-24-2014 05:48 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:27 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Why isn't the prosecutor handling it now qualified?

Where did I mention qualifications?

Then why deviate from normal procedure and bring in an outside prosecutor?

Back to my original question though, will you be satisfied if a prosecutor and grand jury finds that there isn't enough evidence to charge the officer?

If it's a non-biased, outside, prosecutor and grand jury...yes.

So who, and how, should one decide if the prosecutor and jury are non-biased?

My guess is you'll decide their bias based on the outcome...

Ding ding ding.

As will all those people who will go out stealing more stuff.

(10-25-2014 07:19 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 05:48 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 01:27 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Where did I mention qualifications?

Then why deviate from normal procedure and bring in an outside prosecutor?

Back to my original question though, will you be satisfied if a prosecutor and grand jury finds that there isn't enough evidence to charge the officer?

If it's a non-biased, outside, prosecutor and grand jury...yes.

So who, and how, should one decide if the prosecutor and jury are non-biased?

My guess is you'll decide their bias based on the outcome...

Ding ding ding.

As will all those people who will go out stealing more stuff.

Why do GOPers feel the need to answer for other people? Why won't GOPers let people speak for themselves?

(10-24-2014 10:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 10:24 PM)Fitbud 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?

According to whom?

According to the evidence.

It's not rocket science but it seems to be for a few on here.

(10-25-2014 09:15 AM)maximus Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 10:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 10:24 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

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

(10-24-2014 08:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  That's what I've been saying all along

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

According to whom?

According to the evidence.

It's not rocket science but it's seems to be for a few on here.

Not your call to make...

(10-25-2014 09:24 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-25-2014 09:15 AM)maximus Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 10:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 10:24 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 08:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why?
If the evidence does not support prosecution, why do it?

According to whom?

According to the evidence.

It's not rocket science but it's seems to be for a few on here.

Not your call to make...

Huh?

I find it interesting that if one thinks the cop is guilty. Your bias but if you think the cop is innocent, your objective.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

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 predict an Indictment just to delay the inevitable Riot when the Trial results in a Not Guilty.

Hopefully the Trial will be after the "Change in Management" in DC in 2017 so we don't have a DoJ Secondary Witch hunt.

(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

(10-25-2014 01:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I find it interesting that if one thinks the cop is guilty. Your bias but if you think the cop is innocent, your objective.

I don't know what the hell happened and am content to let the process play out.

Are you?