Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I take from this, is whenever you see a police officer confronting a citizen, stop and record it. Make sure the police know they are being watched, and their actions are being recorded, and they are accountable. Maybe we can still be saved from becoming a total police state.
It's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. If he'd presented less evidence to the GJ, and they'd come to the same conclusion he's have been crucified for withholding evidence.
The D.A.'s job is to make calls on cases based on the evidence and findings from any investigation. If the D.A. knows the guy is guilty, but he can't prove it, then there is no reason to go to court. Can't convict based on hopes and dreams.
For case law examples:
State of Florida vs. Casey Anthony
State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman
The Casey Anthony case simply proves that some juries are stupid. The jury was presented with an incredible wealth of evidence incriminating her of the murder of her daughter, and somehow chose to ignore it.
Many lawyers on TV, including prosecutors and defense attorneys in St. Louis county, have stated they have never seen a grand jury in that county run like this one was.
Usually the prosecutor cherry picks the evidence, the incriminating evidence to present to the grand jury in order to secure an indictment. The prosecutor is not there to present all the evidence, or to be fair, or to try to get to the "truth"; the prosecutor's role is to secure justice for the victim of a crime if he or she believes that there is probable cause to find that a crime has been committed, and let the verdict be decided in a trial. The prosecutor is there to represent the dead victim who cannot speak for himself.
This country has still not cured the legacy effects of slavery. It's a huge shame as we could do better to resolve these social economic problems that still plague us even after the '92 riots. Sure, people like Sharpton are nothing but race baiters but casting him and his actions aside, this country needs to resolve its problems.
It's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. If he'd presented less evidence to the GJ, and they'd come to the same conclusion he's have been crucified for withholding evidence.
The D.A.'s job is to make calls on cases based on the evidence and findings from any investigation. If the D.A. knows the guy is guilty, but he can't prove it, then there is no reason to go to court. Can't convict based on hopes and dreams.
For case law examples:
State of Florida vs. Casey Anthony
State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman
Exactly. If he left out a smidgen of evidence people would jump all over him for withholding all of the evidence.
What I take from this, is whenever you see a police officer confronting a citizen, stop and record it. Make sure the police know they are being watched, and their actions are being recorded, and they are accountable. Maybe we can still be saved from becoming a total police state.
In other news, 244 teenagers have been shot in Chicago since Michael Brown died. But hey, the problem here is those damn officers killing people.
The Casey Anthony case simply proves that some juries are stupid. The jury was presented with an incredible wealth of evidence incriminating her of the murder of her daughter, and somehow chose to ignore it.
I don't think anyone questions whether Anthony was involved in her daughter's death, but the law requires proof, not "gee, she sure does look guilty and she can't answer our questions." Remember, it's what you can prove, not what you think you know or want to believe.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer"
-Sir W. Blackstone (1760's)
I know this is a hard concept to swallow, but would you be willing to volunteer to be the one innocent wrongly punished?
Exactly. If he left out a smidgen of evidence people would jump all over him for withholding all of the evidence.
Only thing is that that is exactly what is done in 99.9% of grand jury proceedings; the purpose of a grand jury is not an exhaustive review of all the evidence; that is saved for a trial. Usually a few key elements of a crime are presented to a jury, and they pretty well rubber-stamp the prosecutor's decision to indict. Most grand juries do not go on for weeks and weeks. This was a highly irregular grand jury.
I don't think anyone questions whether Anthony was involved in her daughter's death, but the law requires proof, not "gee, she sure does look guilty and she can't answer our questions." Remember, it's what you can prove, not what you think you know or want to believe.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer"
-Sir W. Blackstone (1760's)
I know this is a hard concept to swallow, but would you be willing to volunteer to be the one innocent wrongly punished?
I don't want to get off on a tangent, but a mother who does not report her 2-year-old daughter missing for over a month, and indeed lies and deceives her own family about it, that's all the evidence I would need to find her guilty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
