« First « Previous Comments 261 - 266 of 266 Search these comments
What is this mysterious letter? Is it a form letter given to GJs to instruct them on the law?
Is the reference in question a reminder to the GJs that it is no longer valid, in case they are not aware of the change?
All sorts of possibilities.
Which can easily be cleared up by publishing the letter.
Which O'DimBulb did not clarify.
So what does "referencing" mean in this context? Maybe the law was referenced as something that is out of date and no longer applicable
And why would you do that? If it is not law then why would you reference it unless you are trying to confuse the GJ
The premise of this entire thread is wrong.
"Ferguson: case closed!" ?????
BZzzzt wrong!
If Wilson had gone to trial, and come up not guilty he'd be free of future prosecution under double jeopardy. Since it didn't go to trial, it could still go to criminal court.
forget the wrong copy versus the right one....i can't keep track of the line by line grammatical timebomb she shit out....
This to me is more or less proof that you didn't know that half the states didn't use them. "oh, ahhhh, I was talking about Missouri,...obviously." Look, I was simply disagreeing with you and pointing you to where you might go to get better informed.
Well you only managed to read the last half the sentence you jumped all over. I specifically said in MO if you had read the first part of the sentence, as in MO is one of the states that uses grand juries. Pointing out where someone could be better informed isn't usually prefeced with the words totally wrong where I come from.
Well you only managed to read the last half the sentence you jumped all over
I saw the reference to Missouri.
IT was actually the entire previous paragraph that led me to believe you thought grand juries are more prevalent than they are.
Not true at all. Although grand juries are an peculiar american anachronism (I believe the US is the only country still using them) investigations are very much a grand jury function. It is not common to do so, but it's not that unusual either. A grand jury having witnesses testifying is perfectly normal and very common. Pretty much routine. That's a big part of determining whether to indict or not.
Btw, I don't claim to be that knowledgeable about grand juries. I just read today that they virtually always indict. Less than 1% of the time that they don't.
I thought that was interesting. Obviously the stats are going to be different when it involves the possible indictment of a cop.
Btw, I don't claim to be that knowledgeable about grand juries. I just read today that they virtually always indict. Less than 1% of the time that they don't.
That's very true. Prosecutors are almost always overworked. They plea bargin anything they can. They go to trail only as a last resort most of the time. Rarely would they go to a grand jury without a pretty firm case for indictment. But it happen some times. Ferguson was clearly a case of dumping the hot potato in the grand juries lap.
« First « Previous Comments 261 - 266 of 266 Search these comments
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/