Posted by moy23 on 12/4/2014 5:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2014 5:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 12/4/2014 5:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2014 5:18:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, you're ignoring reality, moy.

Reality is a prosecutor doesn't even need a grand jury if they think they have a strong case.

Correct. The prosecutor also has political issues to deal with. He can use the grand jury as a shield.

Describe the political issues. That shouldn't matter if the prosecutor has a strong case.... Why would he need a shield? Seems to me the grand jury, politically speaking, was simply being used to confirm a weak case to begin with.

They matter if the prosecutor doesn't want to try the case. If, for example, he works closely with the local police department on a daily basis and needs their support to do his job, he might not want to **** them off by charging an officer with negligent homicide, even if the evidence is incredibly strong.

I'm only talking about the NY case. We have the video. We can read the law. We know that NYPD is not allowed to use choke holds.

Yet, the grand jury did not indict.

The why is one of two things:

1) There is some other piece of evidence that completely mitigates everything we saw and know about the case.

or

2) The prosecutor presented the case in such a way as to not return an indictment. Which he is perfectly capable of doing, based on what we know about how grand juries work.

What do you think is more likely?

Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2014 5:54:00 PM (view original):
I'm only talking about the NY case. We have the video. We can read the law. We know that NYPD is not allowed to use choke holds.

Yet, the grand jury did not indict.

The why is one of two things:

1) There is some other piece of evidence that completely mitigates everything we saw and know about the case.

or

2) The prosecutor presented the case in such a way as to not return an indictment. Which he is perfectly capable of doing, based on what we know about how grand juries work.

What do you think is more likely?

I think the grand jury was presented with the law, the video, the 50+ eye witness accounts, and all the other evidence and in the end they decided there was not enough to prove probable cause for homicide.

moy, based on what you know about the Garner case, do you think any crime was committed by Pantaleo?

Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2014 6:07:00 PM (view original):
So you're picking option 2.

No - there is always more to a case than you or I would know about but those in the jury are privy to. I'll give you an example ... Remember that old lady everyone laughs about that sued McDonalds when she spilled coffee on herself and won $2.9 million? Now go google 'sue McDonalds coffee' and click on images.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2014 4:51:00 PM (view original):
So the ME was wrong. OK. They should find a new one if the one they have calls something a homicide when it's not. Someone who's not a cop might go to jail if they do that again. They're ******* lucky they were wrong and it was a cop who did it. Phew.

Glad we finally agree.

At the end of the day, I'd rather have Wilson and the NY cop walking around than the two dead guys.    The cops may not always react perfectly but they're attempting to give me, and you, a safe place to live.     Can't say that about Brown or Garner.

So, yeah, sorry if I'm not shedding tears for guys who fight cops or resist arrest when half a dozen cops are present. 

Rule #2.   Don't fight or struggle with cops. 


Maybe the day will come when cops beat my *** for no reason or, better yet, shoot me in the forehead a dozen times.   But I doubt it. 

According to this guy: http://law.fordham.edu/faculty/jamesacohen.htm

"There is no question that a grand jury will do precisely what the prosecutor wants, virtually 100% of the time,"

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2014 6:18:00 PM (view original):
At the end of the day, I'd rather have Wilson and the NY cop walking around than the two dead guys.    The cops may not always react perfectly but they're attempting to give me, and you, a safe place to live.     Can't say that about Brown or Garner.

So, yeah, sorry if I'm not shedding tears for guys who fight cops or resist arrest when half a dozen cops are present. 

Rule #2.   Don't fight or struggle with cops. 


Maybe the day will come when cops beat my *** for no reason or, better yet, shoot me in the forehead a dozen times.   But I doubt it. 

I doubt it too. You aren't black.

From the New Yorker:

grand juries are known as tools of prosecutors. In the famous words of Sol Wachtler, the former chief judge of the New York Court of Appeals, a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich” if he wanted to.

So we're back to the prosecutor having to "want to" indict someone rather than indicting them because the evidence dictates it?

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2014 7:39:00 PM (view original):
So we're back to the prosecutor having to "want to" indict someone rather than indicting them because the evidence dictates it?

Do you think Pantaleo committed a crime?