Hambone, I've never seen such an arrogantly uninformed person such as yourself. You lecture me on probable cause and it's clear you've never read a case on the subject in your life. You simply see the word "probable" and assume that the standard requires the prosecution to prove a crime "probably" occurred. Well, there's a legal term for that standard: preponderance of the evidence, which is a civil standard. Probable cause on the other hand requires proving that there is a "substantial probability" the crime occurred. See Illinois v Gates. There Rehnquist says it's not technical and doesn't require a better than even chance (a common--your--misconception). This same definition more or less has been in place since Justice Marshall first defined it 200 years ago. One of the most common definitions is "a reasonable belief a person committed a crime".

Again, the word probable invokes probability and the weighing of such, not "probably"; not 51%; not "more probable than not"; just "substantial probability" based on evidence presented to the judge or grand jury, which can include hearsay at this point and which can just take into account evidence from the prosecution's side. You'd know this if you'd read more and talk less; I've read dozens of cases on probable cause which is probably (see: a correct use of the word) a lot less than Jugnaut but is certainly dozens more than you.

I have enough evidence to show a substantial probability, definitely.

Again, please don't lecture me on "how the system works", it's laughable. "How the system works" is law enforcement makes an arrest when there's probable cause unless they are convinced they'll lose the case because of some mitigating/exonerating evidence, and if there is indeed that evidence they should make the case to the public as to why they're not even trying, especially in a charged atmosphere such as this, to ensure faith in the process.

(04-07-2012 02:21 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 11:05 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 10:31 AM)Max Power Wrote:  That falls under "there's some mitigating/exonerating evidence they're hiding".

And even if it's out there you can still prove up probable cause because you can't make affirmative defense arguments at a probable cause or grand jury indictment hearing.

So they could have arrested them and you're mad b/c you wanted them to, but they didn't. max always wanting to be in control.

Generally when somebody kills a kid without an airtight defense, they get arrested, and law enforcement lets the courts and defense lawyers ensure the fairness of the process. This is turned on its head. I want him arrested because it's their f'king job moron, and if indeed there is that airtight defense they should speak up to relieve the tension.

That doesn't change the accuracy of my assessment.

(04-07-2012 12:38 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  All anyone is asking is for this man to go through the system and face a jury of his peers after taking the life of an unarmed child.

He's in that system. That's what you don't like, and what people are trying to circumvent.

Quote: No one has asked for his conviction.

That's simply untrue.

(04-08-2012 07:26 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 02:21 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 11:05 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 10:31 AM)Max Power Wrote:  That falls under "there's some mitigating/exonerating evidence they're hiding".

And even if it's out there you can still prove up probable cause because you can't make affirmative defense arguments at a probable cause or grand jury indictment hearing.

So they could have arrested them and you're mad b/c you wanted them to, but they didn't. max always wanting to be in control.

Generally when somebody kills a kid without an airtight defense, they get arrested, and law enforcement lets the courts and defense lawyers ensure the fairness of the process. This is turned on its head. I want him arrested because it's their f'king job moron, and if indeed there is that airtight defense they should speak up to relieve the tension.

That doesn't change the accuracy of my assessment.

That's true, but your assessment is pointless. Asking law enforcement to make an arrest when there is probable cause and no apparent exonerating evidence is reasonable and necessary for the system we have in place to work. Prosecutors could let every killer go free and it sure as hell would be my business.

(04-08-2012 07:28 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 12:38 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  All anyone is asking is for this man to go through the system and face a jury of his peers after taking the life of an unarmed child.

He's in that system. That's what you don't like, and what people are trying to circumvent.

Quote: No one has asked for his conviction.

That's simply untrue.

No he's not in the system and that's the point you fail to grasp. First there has to be an arrest and the state has to bring the guy before the courts in order for the courts to do their job. The state has to initiate.

Who asked for a conviction? I've been very clear I just want a fair trial.

(04-08-2012 07:56 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Who asked for a conviction? I've been very clear I just want a fair trial.

Apparently no one believes, at least at this point, that a crime was committed. So why the trial; to satisfy people who know very little about the case? I don't think so.

Max, you're pushing this so hard that I'm starting to believe race is playing a factor in your mind, and you know what that makes you, right?

(04-08-2012 07:26 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 02:21 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 11:05 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 10:31 AM)Max Power Wrote:  That falls under "there's some mitigating/exonerating evidence they're hiding".

And even if it's out there you can still prove up probable cause because you can't make affirmative defense arguments at a probable cause or grand jury indictment hearing.

So they could have arrested them and you're mad b/c you wanted them to, but they didn't. max always wanting to be in control.

Generally when somebody kills a kid without an airtight defense, they get arrested, and law enforcement lets the courts and defense lawyers ensure the fairness of the process. This is turned on its head. I want him arrested because it's their f'king job moron, and if indeed there is that airtight defense they should speak up to relieve the tension.

That doesn't change the accuracy of my assessment.

I don't EVER remember one assessment that you have made that was accurate.

(04-08-2012 09:32 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-08-2012 07:56 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Who asked for a conviction? I've been very clear I just want a fair trial.

Apparently no one believes, at least at this point, that a crime was committed. So why the trial; to satisfy people who know very little about the case? I don't think so.

Max, you're pushing this so hard that I'm starting to believe race is playing a factor in your mind, and you know what that makes you, right?

IF THEY HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED THEN. TELL. US. WHY.

They are convening a grand jury, finally, so we'll have our question answered soon.

(04-08-2012 07:56 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-08-2012 07:28 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 12:38 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  All anyone is asking is for this man to go through the system and face a jury of his peers after taking the life of an unarmed child.

He's in that system. That's what you don't like, and what people are trying to circumvent.

Quote: No one has asked for his conviction.

That's simply untrue.

No he's not in the system and that's the point you fail to grasp. First there has to be an arrest and the state has to bring the guy before the courts in order for the courts to do their job. The state has to

thats part of the system. Deal with it

(04-08-2012 10:01 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-08-2012 09:32 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-08-2012 07:56 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Who asked for a conviction? I've been very clear I just want a fair trial.

Apparently no one believes, at least at this point, that a crime was committed. So why the trial; to satisfy people who know very little about the case? I don't think so.

Max, you're pushing this so hard that I'm starting to believe race is playing a factor in your mind, and you know what that makes you, right?

IF THEY HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED THEN. TELL. US. WHY.

They are convening a grand jury, finally, so we'll have our question answered soon.

All criminal cases in Texas have a Grand Jury component.

(04-08-2012 10:22 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-08-2012 10:01 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-08-2012 09:32 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-08-2012 07:56 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Who asked for a conviction? I've been very clear I just want a fair trial.

Apparently no one believes, at least at this point, that a crime was committed. So why the trial; to satisfy people who know very little about the case? I don't think so.

Max, you're pushing this so hard that I'm starting to believe race is playing a factor in your mind, and you know what that makes you, right?

IF THEY HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED THEN. TELL. US. WHY.

They are convening a grand jury, finally, so we'll have our question answered soon.

All criminal cases in Texas have a death penalty component.

FIFY

(04-08-2012 10:34 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-08-2012 10:22 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  All criminal cases in Texas have a death penalty component.

FIFY

Jealous, aint ya?

(04-08-2012 10:38 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-08-2012 10:34 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-08-2012 10:22 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  All criminal cases in Texas have a death penalty component.

FIFY

Jealous, aint ya?

Yeah, I really like seeing innocent people die because you pro-life guys like to see people die.

(04-07-2012 12:38 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  All anyone is asking is for this man to go through the system and face a jury of his peers after taking the life of an unarmed child.

"Stalking a neighborhood" LOL

(04-08-2012 12:38 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 12:38 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  All anyone is asking is for this man to go through the system and face a jury of his peers after taking the life of an unarmed child.

Hoodie != disguise I wear one on cool nights

I have 4 hoodies in my closet. Finish Line had a pretty good sale on college hoodies awhile back and I got 2. But I would have never made these purchases if I didn't know I have to worry about getting *legally* shot or accosted for walking around certain neighborhoods.

LOL JK I'm white, I have nothing to worry about.

I was watching CNN yesterday and they were talking about Trayvon getting shot for wearing a hoodie, then immediately segmented to a story on pharmacy robberies to obtain pills and every single robbery video (multiple videos) had a black young male in a hoodie robbing the store with a gun. I kid you not. I was just like CNN fail...

(04-08-2012 02:53 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-08-2012 12:38 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-07-2012 12:38 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  All anyone is asking is for this man to go through the system and face a jury of his peers after taking the life of an unarmed child.

Hoodie != disguise I wear one on cool nights

I was trying to show that Martin isn't a child.

(04-08-2012 03:04 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  I was watching CNN yesterday and they were talking about Trayvon getting shot for wearing a hoodie, then immediately segmented to a story on pharmacy robberies to obtain pills and every single robbery video (multiple videos) had a black young male in a hoodie robbing the store with a gun. I kid you not. I was just like CNN fail...

We see a lot of those on TV where a convenience store is robbed by a black guy in a hoodie. Now take that and add to it that many black folks want to portray a tough, hoodlum image and the stereotype is exactly what they created. How come a black guy on the cover of a rap CD has a mean and intimidating look with gansta lyrics? Now they are portraying an intimidating stereotype and then fault people when they say all black men in hoodlies scare them. They create that persona and want us to treat them like they're Barry Manilow? That's BS.

How do you blame a person for being scared?