Well, he is. At least according to a leak from a person on the grand jury
Quote from: Kinder on November 13, 2014, 04:19:35 PMWell, he is. At least according to a leak from a person on the grand juryMistrial'd
A judge may cancel a trial prior to the return of a verdict; legal parlance designates this as a mistrial.
Quote from: Mad Max on November 13, 2014, 04:24:31 PMQuote from: Kinder on November 13, 2014, 04:19:35 PMWell, he is. At least according to a leak from a person on the grand juryMistrial'dNopeQuoteA judge may cancel a trial prior to the return of a verdict; legal parlance designates this as a mistrial.Key term is PRIOR. How can a person say there would be no indictment if the decision wasn't made yet? Plus, the grand jury isn't a trial, as it's in actuality a probable cause hearing between the judge, a jury, and the prosecutor. The jury goes over the evidence laid out by the prosecutor and decide if there's enough to indicate probable cause was established. So what we have here is that there was no probable cause the officer acted on a racial bias OR the story of the friend is correct. On top of that, a forensic report backs up the story of the police department
Quote from: Kinder on November 13, 2014, 07:21:40 PMQuote from: Mad Max on November 13, 2014, 04:24:31 PMQuote from: Kinder on November 13, 2014, 04:19:35 PMWell, he is. At least according to a leak from a person on the grand juryMistrial'dNopeQuoteA judge may cancel a trial prior to the return of a verdict; legal parlance designates this as a mistrial.Key term is PRIOR. How can a person say there would be no indictment if the decision wasn't made yet? Plus, the grand jury isn't a trial, as it's in actuality a probable cause hearing between the judge, a jury, and the prosecutor. The jury goes over the evidence laid out by the prosecutor and decide if there's enough to indicate probable cause was established. So what we have here is that there was no probable cause the officer acted on a racial bias OR the story of the friend is correct. On top of that, a forensic report backs up the story of the police department I could be wrong, but was he referring to the trial being buggered because of the leaks?
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on November 13, 2014, 08:29:50 PMQuote from: Kinder on November 13, 2014, 07:21:40 PMQuote from: Mad Max on November 13, 2014, 04:24:31 PMQuote from: Kinder on November 13, 2014, 04:19:35 PMWell, he is. At least according to a leak from a person on the grand juryMistrial'dNopeQuoteA judge may cancel a trial prior to the return of a verdict; legal parlance designates this as a mistrial.Key term is PRIOR. How can a person say there would be no indictment if the decision wasn't made yet? Plus, the grand jury isn't a trial, as it's in actuality a probable cause hearing between the judge, a jury, and the prosecutor. The jury goes over the evidence laid out by the prosecutor and decide if there's enough to indicate probable cause was established. So what we have here is that there was no probable cause the officer acted on a racial bias OR the story of the friend is correct. On top of that, a forensic report backs up the story of the police department I could be wrong, but was he referring to the trial being buggered because of the leaks?He was, I suppose, although the grand jury is not a trial. No indictment means that the case won't move forward as their's a lack of evidence to show what the prosecutors are trying to push for. Purpose of grand juries is to find sufficient evidence and probable cause exists
Quote from: Kinder on November 13, 2014, 11:34:35 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on November 13, 2014, 08:29:50 PMQuote from: Kinder on November 13, 2014, 07:21:40 PMQuote from: Mad Max on November 13, 2014, 04:24:31 PMQuote from: Kinder on November 13, 2014, 04:19:35 PMWell, he is. At least according to a leak from a person on the grand juryMistrial'dNopeQuoteA judge may cancel a trial prior to the return of a verdict; legal parlance designates this as a mistrial.Key term is PRIOR. How can a person say there would be no indictment if the decision wasn't made yet? Plus, the grand jury isn't a trial, as it's in actuality a probable cause hearing between the judge, a jury, and the prosecutor. The jury goes over the evidence laid out by the prosecutor and decide if there's enough to indicate probable cause was established. So what we have here is that there was no probable cause the officer acted on a racial bias OR the story of the friend is correct. On top of that, a forensic report backs up the story of the police department I could be wrong, but was he referring to the trial being buggered because of the leaks?He was, I suppose, although the grand jury is not a trial. No indictment means that the case won't move forward as their's a lack of evidence to show what the prosecutors are trying to push for. Purpose of grand juries is to find sufficient evidence and probable cause existsAh right <.<Either way, I don't see the outcome of the trial(s?) resulting in peaceful harmony. Either the cop is guilty and people go ballistic with righteous cause, or the cop is found innocent and then claims of a rigged system cause them to kick off.*sigh*
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on November 13, 2014, 11:37:10 PMQuote from: Kinder on November 13, 2014, 11:34:35 PMQuote from: Mr Psychologist on November 13, 2014, 08:29:50 PMQuote from: Kinder on November 13, 2014, 07:21:40 PMQuote from: Mad Max on November 13, 2014, 04:24:31 PMQuote from: Kinder on November 13, 2014, 04:19:35 PMWell, he is. At least according to a leak from a person on the grand juryMistrial'dNopeQuoteA judge may cancel a trial prior to the return of a verdict; legal parlance designates this as a mistrial.Key term is PRIOR. How can a person say there would be no indictment if the decision wasn't made yet? Plus, the grand jury isn't a trial, as it's in actuality a probable cause hearing between the judge, a jury, and the prosecutor. The jury goes over the evidence laid out by the prosecutor and decide if there's enough to indicate probable cause was established. So what we have here is that there was no probable cause the officer acted on a racial bias OR the story of the friend is correct. On top of that, a forensic report backs up the story of the police department I could be wrong, but was he referring to the trial being buggered because of the leaks?He was, I suppose, although the grand jury is not a trial. No indictment means that the case won't move forward as their's a lack of evidence to show what the prosecutors are trying to push for. Purpose of grand juries is to find sufficient evidence and probable cause existsAh right <.<Either way, I don't see the outcome of the trial(s?) resulting in peaceful harmony. Either the cop is guilty and people go ballistic with righteous cause, or the cop is found innocent and then claims of a rigged system cause them to kick off.*sigh*Not guilty*Only two verdicts exist: guilty and not guilty. Not guilty isn't the same as innocent, it means there was lack of evidence to put somebody as guilty. A person charged for murder could have very well done it, but if the jury doesn't buy the evidence presented then they will give him a not guilty verdictYou see, the people who will continue riot after he won't be indicted are the ones who say the system is corrupt. In a VERY ironic manner, if the grand jury knew for sure he the officer wasn't guilty of a crime but did indict him, then that would be the justice system being corrupt. You can't send a person to trial who can't be placed as the offenderForensic results have concluded that the department's and officer's story is the correct version as finger prints, blood, and gun residue were found in the squad car, belonging to the kid that was shot. That shows a physical altercation happened in the car, the kid most likely was reaching for the gun, and the officer drew his weapon and fired
So after Darren Wilson gets off
