News Thread

[DukeNukem05]

Based on this presentation of evidence, I don't know how a grand jury could indict there. Nevertheless, people will riot.

 

[DukeNukem05]

It's a shame that the vast majority of these protesters on TV won't hear these statements.

 

[aiw]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferg ... en-wilson/

 

[aiw]

It's a shame that the vast majority of these protesters on TV won't hear these statements.

Hard to hear the TV when you're stealing it. AMIRITE?!?

 

[DukeNukem05]

YEEEAAHHHH.

 

[CK86]

I feel awful for the small business owners that are having their businesses destroyed.

 

[skins]

It's not justice unless it's the justice that I want.

 

[CK86]

A big ass storage facility is on fire, doubt those with storage units have insurance on it, how awful.

 

[CK86]

Knew I could count on Oakland to represent with the interstate protests.

 

[dkst0426]

They wanted everyone home from school and work

They called off school for Tuesday (yay, longer Thanksgiving break), so if that was the concern, they could've had early dismissal for the schools and urged businesses to close early, couldn't they?

 

[StopThePumpFakesShav]

Based on this presentation of evidence, I don't know how a grand jury could indict there. Nevertheless, people will riot.

If there was an indictment there was no possible path to a conviction (unless some smoking gun would have surfaced during trial).

 

[DukeNukem05]

Based on this presentation of evidence, I don't know how a grand jury could indict there. Nevertheless, people will riot.

If there was an indictment there was no possible path to a conviction (unless some smoking gun would have surfaced during trial).

Exactly, the grand jury saw it for what it was. Good for them. Can you imagine how much worse it would have been if it went to trial and ended with a not guilty verdict?

 

[Dattier]

Based on this presentation of evidence, I don't know how a grand jury could indict there. Nevertheless, people will riot.

If there was an indictment there was no possible path to a conviction (unless some smoking gun would have surfaced during trial).

Exactly, the grand jury saw it for what it was. Good for them. Can you imagine how much worse it would have been if it went to trial and ended with a not guilty verdict?

Based on the George Zimmerman verdict, the reaction wouldn't have been as bad. In both the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown deaths, public outrage and the threat of protests turning violent were at their highest when it seemed like nothing was going to be done. Zimmerman's trial seemed to have had the effect of making people feel heard, at least.

It's not the grand jury's job to get or predict a conviction. They're not investing. It's not "Shark Tank." They are to determine probable cause. That's the lowest legal threshold out there. It's basically like asking, "Does something seem fishy here?"

Further, from what I understand, grand juries never hear this much info. This was a trial-level amount of info. And w/ only one side presenting it.

 

[DukeNukem05]

Based on this presentation of evidence, I don't know how a grand jury could indict there. Nevertheless, people will riot.

If there was an indictment there was no possible path to a conviction (unless some smoking gun would have surfaced during trial).

Exactly, the grand jury saw it for what it was. Good for them. Can you imagine how much worse it would have been if it went to trial and ended with a not guilty verdict?

Based on the George Zimmerman verdict, the reaction wouldn't have been as bad. In both the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown deaths, public outrage and the threat of protests turning violent were at their highest when it seemed like nothing was going to be done. Zimmerman's trial seemed to have had the effect of making people feel heard, at least.

It's not the grand jury's job to get or predict a conviction. They're not investing. It's not "Shark Tank." They are to determine probable cause. That's the lowest legal threshold out there. It's basically like asking, "Does something seem fishy here?"

Further, from what I understand, grand juries never hear this much info. This was a trial-level amount of info. And w/ only one side presenting it.

I completely get what you're saying, Dattier. I don't mean to sound like an ignorant attorney with statements indicating there's no chance in hell the grand jury could find probable cause. What really spoke to me, though, was the blood splatter evidence in the car, gunshot residue on Brown's hand, and corroborating statements. The witnesses that stated something other than that account sounded extremely unreliable - not unlike what you currently see in the media on the side of protesters. People forming outrage and building it up beyond what the incident (not intending to belittle the death here..) may actually have been.

Grand juries can get a massive amount of evidence, as the case was here. The point of displaying how much evidence there was in this case is to show that something was done. They thoroughly investigated the shit out of that killing. If that thorough investigation left the prosecutors unconvinced that charges should be brought, then it is likely that it wasn't presented to the grand jury in a manner that says, "you need to find probable cause here." I'm ok with that. The trial would have been a dog and pony show for the sake of the media. I'm not ok with that use of the court system.

 

[Dattier]

No, me, either. I wouldn't want to see an indictment just for the sake of it.

I think the way it was handled just contributes to the suspicions so many already have about the Justice system. Valid or not, those suspicions are just as real and influential.

 

[ZackM]

http://gawker.com/teen-girl-arrested-fo ... socialflow

 

[DukeNukem05]

Finally some news worth crying injustice about. Girl is the victim. Fucking prudish cops, DA, community.

Let's hold a dildo-light vigil.

 

[Pantone287]

So, separate from the issue of whether it would be better to have/not have an indictment, would you lawyer types agree that the prosecutor not pressing for one or framing the evidence to encourage one is extremely unusual?

The whole American Bar Association thing and all that seems to not be a great sign.

 

[physicsfactor]

So, separate from the issue of whether it would be better to have/not have an indictment, would you lawyer types agree that the prosecutor not pressing for one or framing the evidence to encourage one is extremely unusual?

The whole American Bar Association thing and all that seems to not be a great sign.

I thought someone on the Shark Tank pointed out that the National Bar Association is a black group. I don't think their opinion is without bias.

 

[Pantone287]

Ahhhhh, sneaky. Guess it wasn't the American Bar Association after all.

The whole 11 non-indictments in 162k federal grand jury casesdoes seem crazy, though, right?