Michael Brown unarmed shooting in Ferguson, MO

[deepdiver]

Like I always say, it only takes one... Just one jerk can having an amazing impact on untold numbers of people. In this alleged case, the one jerk who just couldn't follow the rules and **** about the GJ is going to cause untold expense, time and frustration with likely significant ripple effects from this thing dragging on even longer because of the jerk yakking. And I guess in this case it is 2 jerks because first the GJ jerk told people about the deliberations and then that person posted on Twitter. Stupid in, stupid out.

I hope it turns out that the Twitter poster was just making up stuff but I suspect that is not the case.

ETA: I don't know what kind of consequences the GJ member could have if this is all true but if it does prove to be true, I hope the legal system throws the book at the jerk.

 

[OC for ME]

It looks like someone on the grand jury leaked some info.... some woman tweeted that there wasnt enough evidence to bring criminal charges. Grand jury will likely be dismissed and a new one summoned.

Not enough evidence? Well whose fault is that. If the prosecutor wanted to prosecute it is likely that a great deal more evidence would be presented to the GJ.

Happens all the time, the prosecutor controls the message, the GJ only gets what it is shown.

 

[Grapeshot]

Not enough evidence? Well whose fault is that. If the prosecutor wanted to prosecute it is likely that a great deal more evidence would be presented to the GJ.

Happens all the time, the prosecutor controls the message, the GJ only gets what it is shown.

Since when did Grand Juries cease independent research?

They're not supposed to be "rubber stamp" committees.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Since when did Grand Juries cease independent research?

They're not supposed to be "rubber stamp" committees.

Generally juries are not allowed to do research, unless the judge allows it. Not so sure about grand juries.

 

[OC for ME]

Since when did Grand Juries cease independent research?

They're not supposed to be "rubber stamp" committees.

Think ham samich...

 

[Redbaron007]

My understanding and brief experience is they are only to use the information received from the PA to make a determination; not to use outside info. If the PA provided it, then fine....if they go out and review info from FOX, MSNBC, CNN....they are not to use it in the determination to bill or no bill. IF they admit to trying to use it in deliberations, the juror will be dismissed.

 

[WalkingWolf]

The prosecutor can't present evidence of a crime, if no evidence exists.

If you are trying to be a comedian, don't quit your day job...

 

[OC for ME]

The prosecutor can't present evidence of a crime, if no evidence exists.

Obviously, yet they are also under no obligation to provide all of the evidence they have either.

 

[Redbaron007]

Obviously, yet they are also under no obligation to provide all of the evidence they have either.

^^^^
BINGO.....it's called selective presentation.

 

[color of law]

Obviously, yet they are also under no obligation to provide all of the evidence they have either.

I posted this in the Ohio thread...

99% of the people will never sit on a grand jury. And those that do are usually uninformed participants in what can be described as a fraud. The grand jury only hears what is presented to them by the prosecutor. In other words, they don't always hear all the facts known to the prosecutor. The grand jury can be easily manipulated by unscrupulous prosecutors.

Prosecutors can frame arguments that favor their version of events, emphasize the testimony of one witness, and ignore the testimony of another. Evidence presented before a grand jury may be so flimsy that it would not be admissible at a trial. Grand jurors may hear rumors from witnesses or even use their own knowledge of an alleged crime in determining whether to indict. A defendant has no right to be present or even have an attorney present to listen to the proceedings or rebut false accusations.

In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that prosecutors have no legal obligation to provide "substantial exculpatory evidence" to a grand jury, a standard requirement in a trial.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the case, U.S. v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, “Because it has always been thought sufficient for the grand jury to hear only the prosecutor's side, and, consequently that the suspect has no right to present, and the grand jury no obligation to consider, exculpatory evidence, it would be incompatible with the traditional system to impose upon the prosecutor a legal obligation to present such evidence.”

Once the people understand their duty as citizens then maybe grand juries will understand their job is to be the bulwark between the government and the alleged accused.

Plain and simple, the grand jury is the forth branch of government of which their job is to protect the people.

 

[OC for ME]

I posted this in the Ohio thread...

... Plain and simple, the grand jury is the forth branch of government of which their job is to protect the people.

Yepper, I read that and summarized.

 

[The Truth]

Police trampling Constitutional Rights of protesters in Ferguson, MO

This according to a Federal Court Judge. I don't believe it!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2014/10/06/judge-injunction-ferguson-police/16835217/

 

[Primus]

This according to a Federal Court Judge. I don't believe it!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2014/10/06/judge-injunction-ferguson-police/16835217/

See the statist system is horribly broken!!

 

[davidmcbeth]

See the statist system is horribly broken!!

I did not see people at the Bundy Ranch moving .. I wonder why?

Its harder to hit your target if you are moving.

 

[marshaul]

See the statist system is horribly broken!!

I missed the part where there has been substantive reform of any of the deeper problems.

Courts are decent at putting bandaids on situations they created (or tolerated) in the first place, but they are quite unwilling to, for instance, put their foot down when it comes to Federal equipment handouts and training of local law enforcement, or on any of the other associated "War on x" crap. These are, of course, the deeper causes of basically all this excess.

But yeah, good on them in this case. I guess.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I have a saying "Sometimes bad people do good deeds, and sometimes good people do bad deeds."

They still have not arrested the killer...

 

[Primus]

I missed the part where there has been substantive reform of any of the deeper problems.

Courts are decent at putting bandaids on situations they created (or tolerated) in the first place, but they are quite unwilling to, for instance, put their foot down when it comes to Federal equipment handouts and training of local law enforcement, or on any of the other associated "War on x" crap. These are, of course, the deeper causes of basically all this excess.

But yeah, good on them in this case. I guess.

How can that one judge change the entire war on x?

Even better, how can any part of the judicial branch change anything in regards to what the .gov sells locals?

 

[marshaul]

Even better, how can any part of the judicial branch change anything in regards to what the .gov sells locals?

Federally-subsidized militarization of police ought to reasonably be considered a violation of the posse comitatus act. Military tactics as used by law enforcement routinely violate the first, second, and fourth amendments.

BTW, I don't expect one judge to fix everything; you were the one championing the success of the state after one measly ruling.

 

[Renegadez]

Federally-subsidized militarization of police ought to reasonably be considered a violation of the posse comitatus act. Military tactics as used by law enforcement routinely violate the first, second, and fourth amendments.

BTW, I don't expect one judge to fix everything; you were the one championing the success of the state after one measly ruling.

As far as I know Posse Comitatus had been repealed. On December 31, 2011, Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

 

[OC for ME]

Telling the cops to "not do that anymore" is hardly getting it right. Where are the criminal repercussions of those acts. In MO it is unlawful to intentionally restrain/confine/transport a citizen without just cause or their consent. Unlawful arrest is a civil action only. Those cops claiming that the "5 second" rule is legit are flat out lying. Cops know their 1A right just as anyone else does. They enforced a policy and as such they must be held to account under MO criminal statutes.