mike brown vs. eric garner

[Sean88gt]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[dcs13]

A definition is not an absolute. Look at the statutory provisions that list out elements. The cop should stand trial for involuntary manslaughter. Let the jury of his peers determine guilt, not a grand jury.

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 ?

[dcs13]

Did you bother reading that before you posted it? It doesn't prove your point, or even come close.

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.

[Sean88gt]

Here is what NY has a Negligence. We're talking Criminal here, not civil. They going to lose a civil case. But for a grand jury to file charges they have to say he at least was negligent. You tell me where it fits under here:
Criminal negligence." A person acts with criminal negligence with
respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining
an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable
risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The
risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it
constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a
reasonable person would observe in the situation.

A definition is not an absolute. Look at the statutory provisions that list out elements. The cop should stand trial for involuntary manslaughter. Let the jury of his peers determine guilt, not a grand jury.

[bubbaearl]

that was not a choke hold. one arm under the arm pit , one around the neck. for a choke hold you wrap the neck and use your forearm on the back for leverage.
the man died because he was in piss poor health. had they pepper sprayed him he would have died . had they tazed him he would likely die. if they simply wrestled with him longer he would have died . had he complied he would be home awaiting charges.
like it or not " your under arrest " means put your fucking hands behind your back . period . end of debate . it is not a suggestion .

[bcoop]

Happens all the time-

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Pol...280776112.html

Your article isn't proof of anything. He hasn't been charged... Yet. Police referred to grand jury. Which is the same thing that happens nearly any time someone is killed. There are thousands of instances where similar situations have gone to trial. This very one may even go to trial.


Did you bother reading that before you posted it? It doesn't prove your point, or even come close.

[Denny]

Happens all the time-

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Pol...280776112.html

No matter what the ME calls it, can still go to trial. That doesnt disclude it.

[YALE]

Happens all the time-

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Pol...280776112.html

Not the same thing. Fuck it. I don't understand. I guess I won't ever.

[46Tbird]

So the risk that a fat guy might stop breathing, cops shouldn't arrest them ?

Cops can arrest them. Cops can't choke the fuck out of them and jump on their backs until they suffocate and die. Please note the subtle the difference.