Michael Brown Shooting Cont

[DanteGabriel]

Pretty funny that tptwp thinks a lack of indictment from a grand jury means Wilson is totally innocent, while two years of investigating Obama for alleged crimes related to Benghazi and a report detailing no crime means they just haven't found the real dirt yet.

[karaddin]

I get your point TrueMetis, but I don't think Capone sold drugs. His main rackets were alcohol, prostitution, and gambling. I'm pretty sure the Chicago Outfit intentionally stayed away from drugs under the "Vito Corleone policy". Their politicians, cops, and judges on their payroll were okay with "harmless vices" like hookers, booze, and gambling.

Alcohol is a drug, at the time an illegal one no less.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

If these protestors are legit, why cover the face?

Rudimentary protection against the tear gas that's being deployed, like against the people inside a coffee shop? (The owner is there and has said he will not require anyone to leave, but the police tear gassed anyway. Individuals on a police bulletin board -- not necessarily police themselves, before anyone jumps in with that -- have 'slammed' this particular cafe already.)

[ThinkerX]

I find myself remembering my last stint as a grand juror. Typically, we heard a couple dozen cases a day, ranging from petty (felony drunk driving) to damn serious (rape and home invasion). Most of the time enough evidence was presented for the case to go to trial. Twice, though, we ruled otherwise. In one case, the state completely failed to make a case - they presented no evidence whatsoever. The other one came down to a he said/she said type deal involving a inventory/embezzling scheme. In that one, the complainant really believed he'd been stolen from, but couldn't produce any significant evidence. Some of us were inclined to believe him, but without evidence, he didn't have a case. So the accused embezzler walked. Some jurors expressed concern about this afterwards, but the attitude was 'provide real evidence next time, not accusations.'

My take on this Ferguson mess is that a few years down the road it is going to come out that a file or three of highly relevant evidence was 'misplaced' and never seen by the grand jurors. The jurors ruled on the evidence presented to them, which given the racial mess, was very likely not all the evidence available.

[Ned Snow]

Alcohol is a drug, at the time an illegal one no less.

I'm aware that alcohol is a drug. I'm pretty sure TrueMetis was referring to cocaine, heroine, and the like. "Street drugs." Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not defending the guy by the way. I liked watching him shoot people on Boardwalk Empire, but that doesn't mean I think he was a-ok as a person.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Pretty funny that tptwp thinks a lack of indictment from a grand jury means Wilson is totally innocent, while two years of investigating Obama for alleged crimes related to Benghazi and a report detailing no crime means they just haven't found the real dirt yet.

How can he be anything other than innocent if he committed no crime?

What is totally innocent, BTW? Are you implying you believe he may be partially innocent? As to Benghazi, that should probably stay in the us politics thread, where it brings. Don't you think?

[TrueMetis]

No! That's not true at all. They wouldn't say that because they aren't determining innocence, they are determining guilt. Which part of what I said do you actually think is not true? Because, the fact that the default position is innocence does not mean they will determine innocence in a trial, your logic does not follow at all.

See now I'm confused, if they aren't determining innocence then why the fuck do you have an issue with me saying that not guilty doesn't mean innocent?

ETA: And I realize I probably should have brought this up at the beginning.

I get your point TrueMetis, but I don't think Capone sold drugs. His main rackets were alcohol, prostitution, and gambling. I'm pretty sure the Chicago Outfit intentionally stayed away from drugs under the "Vito Corleone policy". Their politicians, cops, and judges on their payroll were okay with "harmless vices" like hookers, booze, and gambling.

Fair point.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

I find myself remembering my last stint as a grand juror. Typically, we heard a couple dozen cases a day, ranging from petty (felony drunk driving) to damn serious (rape and home invasion). Most of the time enough evidence was presented for the case to go to trial. Twice, though, we ruled otherwise. In one case, the state completely failed to make a case - they presented no evidence whatsoever. The other one came down to a he said/she said type deal involving a inventory/embezzling scheme. In that one, the complainant really believed he'd been stolen from, but couldn't produce any significant evidence. Some of us were inclined to believe him, but without evidence, he didn't have a case. So the accused embezzler walked. Some jurors expressed concern about this afterwards, but the attitude was 'provide real evidence next time, not accusations.'

My take on this Ferguson mess is that a few years down the road it is going to come out that a file or three of highly relevant evidence was 'misplaced' and never seen by the grand jurors. The jurors ruled on the evidence presented to them, which given the racial mess, was very likely not all the evidence available.

Sound like the basis of a solid conspiracy theory. Great job

[Ned Snow]

Not guilty doesn't mean innocent. All it means is that the prosecution didn't prove that the defendant committed the specific crime they were charged with. That's it. It has to do with what has been proved in the eyes of the trier of fact, not what actually happened.

Either the prosecution proved you're guilty, or they didn't. A person who actually did murder someone, but gets away with murder is not innocent, but he's still not guilty.

[DanteGabriel]

Not guilty doesn't mean innocent. All it means is that the prosecution didn't prove that the defendant committed the specific crime they were charged with. That's it. It has to do with what has been proved in the eyes of the trier of fact, not what actually happened.

Either the prosecution proved you're guilty, or you didn't. A person who actually did murder someone, but gets away with murder is not innocent, but he's still not guilty.

I predict that the people trying to explain this distinction to tptwp (hey, is OJ Simpson innocent?) will have as much success as the people who tried to explain to him the difference between rate of traffic stops and number of traffic stops.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

I predict that the people trying to explain this distinction to tptwp (hey, is OJ Simpson innocent?) will have as much success as the people who tried to explain to him the difference between rate of traffic stops and number of traffic stops.

Yeah, he wasn't responding to me so.... Chicago

[TrueMetis]

Not guilty doesn't mean innocent. All it means is that the prosecution didn't prove that the defendant committed the specific crime they were charged with. That's it. It has to do with what has been proved in the eyes of the trier of fact, not what actually happened.

Either the prosecution proved you're guilty, or you didn't. A person who actually did murder someone, but gets away with murder is not innocent, but he's still not guilty.

This is what I meant, thanks for saying it far better than I did. Pretty sure I made myself look like a jackass.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Pictures of Wilson right after the altercation. Dude looks like he's barely injured, yet claimed he was struck twice and that he feared the third blow would be fatal. Also, he calls Mike Brown "it" multple times. But you know, fair investigation and all....

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/justice/ferguson-grand-jury-documents/index.html

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

tptwp, GotB, Ned Snow,

....which means no crime was committed

No.

By that logic if somone is found murdered in their home and there is insufficient evidence to indict a particular individual for that murder "no crime was commited". That is not the case.

In my hypothetical a crime was clearly commited there was simply not enough evidence to indict any particular person for the murder. Grand Juries do not say "no crime was committed" they say nothing regarding the facts of a particular case they say only there is or is not sufficient evidence for a trial to take place.

They say no more and no less.

[Inigima]

If a grand jury indicts, it still doesn't necessarily mean there was a crime committed. A grand jury indictment (correct me if I'm wrong, lawyers) is a decision that there's enough evidence -- probable cause is the standard, as I understand it -- that a crime may have been committed to warrant a trial, at which the accused may be found guilty or innocent. Conversely, the grand jury choosing not to indict does not mean there was no crime, it means there was not adequate evidence that a crime was committed to warrant a trial. Don't confuse a grand jury hearing with a trial.

See this WaPo article for an overview of the process and this specific case. It makes a couple of additional points, including:

• The grand jury was not instructed to consider specific charges.
  
• As the officer was not charged, and there is no statute of limitations on homicide, the case could go before a new grand jury should new evidence come to light, which would not be violative of the double jeopardy clause.

[Relic]

I can't believe you guys are wasting time explaining this process. It will fall upon deaf ears.

[Inigima]

A lot of the responses read like they didn't understand the grand jury process as well, it isn't just about that guy, who I am increasingly convinced is a very successful troll. (Watch me get it wrong, now. I believe I've explained it correctly, though.)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Inigima,

Correct.

Relic,

I had friends on my Facebook feed talking about the Grand Jury issuing a "verdict" yesterday afternoon. Most people have no clue what a Grand Jury does. Further, they don't realize that in many States a "Grand Jury" is unnecessary. A preliminary evidentiary hearing where a Court finds "probable cause" to indict does the same thing a Grand Jury does.

[Talleyrand]

I'm sure homicide departments across America would be overjoyed to hear tptwp's definition I mean if they can't find enough evidence to charge someone then that means no crime was committed so their clearance rate sits at 100%

[Inigima]

Thanks Scot.