mike brown vs. eric garner

[bcoop]

His point was how often does a death that is ruled a homicide not result in a trial. My point - all the time. People are NO BILLED all them time in self defense killings. The deaths are still ruled as homicides.
The Dallas case was selected because everyone here remembers it. That guy is no way gonna get a true bill and stand trial. It's still a homicide.

Several cases still go to trial, though. In fact, don't CHL instructors tell people that if they use their gun, to plan for a trial?


The fact still remains that police can kick in your door and kill you, steal from you, and get a paid vacation for a few months at worst. They very rarely stand trial. A citizen does those things, they're going to trial and most likely jail.


If you do not see it, you're part of the problem. Period.

[Sean88gt]

So we should just do away with grand juries and send everyone to trial ? A grand jury is a jury of your peers. It only dtermines IF probable cause exists to warrant a trial.
So the dad that kills the guy raping his daughter should automatically have to go to trial ?

Are you saying the grand jury was a panel of his peers, fellow officers? The father didn't have an increased duty of care, he acted as a reasonable father would after finding out his daughter had been raped. Cops should act appropriately with their station in life. This guy didn't.

You're mixing terminology. Juries don't rule on probable cause, they are there to weigh the facts against the law and make a determination.

[dcs13]

Are you saying the grand jury was a panel of his peers, fellow officers? The father didn't have an increased duty of care, he acted as a reasonable father would after finding out his daughter had been raped. Cops should act appropriately with their station in life. This guy didn't.

You're mixing terminology. Juries don't rule on probable cause, they are there to weigh the facts against the law and make a determination.

Grand Juries absolutely rule on probable cause. They weigh the facts and determine if probable cause exists to hold the case for trial. Any google search tells you that is their primary function.

http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/stategj/funcsgj.htm

Indicting:Grand juries hear evidence presented by a prosecutor and decide whether it creates probable cause to believe that specific persons have committed crimes. Prosecutors usually submit a statement of proposed charges known as an "indictment" to a grand jury. The prosecutor leaves the jurors alone and they decide if the evidence gives them probable cause to believe the people named in the indictment are guilty of the crimes it charges them with. If a majority of the jurors vote for the indictment, it is "returned" and initiates a criminal case against the people it names as defendants.


His PEERS are citizens of NY or Ferguson. Just regular people from the community. Not a hand picked buch. Regular people. 23 in fact in NY. And they couldn't get over 50% to agree on an indictment.

[Sean88gt]

Well, everything on google is the absolute and definitive answer.

Here is the Black's law dictionary definition: A body of people who are chosen to sit permanently for at least a month - and sometimes a year - and who, in ex parte proceedings, decide whether to issue indictments. If the grand jury decides that evidence is strong enough to hold a suspect for trial, it returns a bill of indictment (a true bill) charging the suspect with a specific crime.

Probable cause is a bare suspicion that is less than the evidence that would justify a conviction - which must be shown before an arrest warrant or search warrant may be issued.

They aren't the same thing.

[juiceweezl]

The fact still remains that police can kick in your door and kill you, steal from you, and get a paid vacation for a few months at worst. They very rarely stand trial. A citizen does those things, they're going to trial and most likely jail.

If you do not see it, you're part of the problem. Period.

QFT! Whether you agree with the no bill or not, what Brent says here is the real truth. This is what has to change.

[dcs13]

Well, everything on google is the absolute and definitive answer.

Here is the Black's law dictionary definition: A body of people who are chosen to sit permanently for at least a month - and sometimes a year - and who, in ex parte proceedings, decide whether to issue indictments. If the grand jury decides that evidence is strong enough to hold a suspect for trial, it returns a bill of indictment (a true bill) charging the suspect with a specific crime.

Probable cause is a bare suspicion that is less than the evidence that would justify a conviction - which must be shown before an arrest warrant or search warrant may be issued.

They aren't the same thing.

Your definition is correct. It listens to evidence and issues a true or no bill. Thus "deciding" if there is enough evidence (probable cuase) to hold for trial. Once a true bill is issued, a warrant can be issued for the suspect for the charge.
Probable cause you are way off.
look here:
"Probable cause" generally refers to the requirement in criminal law that police have adequate reason to arrest someone, conduct a search, or seize property relating to an alleged crime.

The probable cause requirement comes from the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be searched."

As seen in those words, in order for a court to issue a warrant -- for someone's arrest, or to search or seize property -- there must be "probable cause."

Police must also have probable cause to arrest without a warrant, and in many cases to search or seize property without a warrant.

Prosecutors must also have probable cause to charge a defendant with a crime.

[Sean88gt]

You're still transposing, and clearly missing the issue here.

[dcs13]

You're still transposing, and clearly missing the issue here.

Not missing any issue.
Grand Jury determines if there is enough evidence (read probable casue) to hold case over for trial.
In THIS case the 23 grand juruors decided that based on the evidence, probable cause to issue a warrant and hold over for trial did not exist. So they did not return a "true" bill. It's very simple.

On the civil side of this, NYPD cuts a big check and its done deal.

[bcoop]

You're still transposing, and clearly missing the issue here.

He's LE, of course he misses the issue. He'd defend ANY use of force, in any circumstance. He's done it on here plenty of times. I don't know if it stems from becoming jaded after years on the job, or if it's the attitude that is pushed from the top down. Maybe a little of both. Cops have always had leeway when it comes to enforcing the law and doing their jobs. It seems that leeway has given them the opinion that they can do whatever the fuck the want with no consequence. I think they do deserve a little leeway, in all honesty. But it needs to be reigned way the fuck in.

[talisman]

You guys are arguing with dcs13? Don't you realize he never reads anything before responding to it, he just starts hitting those keys, thinking his opinion is too valuable to hold up for things like actual facts or data that in any way relate to what he is talking about?

[talisman]

Wait a tick. Is this dcs guy in LE? That would explain a LOT over the past couple of years.

[Sean88gt]

Not missing any issue.
Grand Jury determines if there is enough evidence (read probable casue) to hold case over for trial.
In THIS case the 23 grand juruors decided that based on the evidence, probable cause to issue a warrant and hold over for trial did not exist. So they did not return a "true" bill. It's very simple.

On the civil side of this, NYPD cuts a big check and its done deal.

He's LE, of course he misses the issue. He'd defend ANY use of force, in any circumstance. He's done it on here plenty of times. I don't know if it stems from becoming jaded after years on the job, or if it's the attitude that is pushed from the top down. Maybe a little of both. Cops have always had leeway when it comes to enforcing the law and doing their jobs. It seems that leeway has given them the opinion that they can do whatever the fuck the want with no consequence. I think they do deserve a little leeway, in all honesty. But it needs to be reigned way the fuck in.

Enough said. Glad I'm not 1. black and, 2. in his presence.

[talisman]

Garner's last words..

[Sean88gt]

Apparently, you have to tell a cop at least 11 times before they get it.

[Mach1]

Garner's last words..

wow........