I am so annoyed at Ferguson flooding my news feed. The ignorance of black people simply amazes me. What do you think is going to happen if you attack a police officer? Of course they are allowed to use deadly force. Those people should be burning down their EBT's instead of others livelyhoods and property.
To sum it up: your opinion that this is a flawed argument outweighs any opinions anyone else might have, and only others' opinions are worthless. Of course, you have no facts to lean on here, you cannot demonstrate that any law or procedural rule was violated, so we are left with... your opinion. What other recourse do you have, really, other than trying to argue that your opinions matter more than someone else's - or even the law?
You should stop holding onto one legal professor's opinion as gospel. The legal system has never been completely fair and just, you should know that. Neither is it transient and unchangeable like you seem to suggest. I think this unusual change to the grand jury opens new doors to a less rigid and useless system of probable cause hearings before this. As someone mentioned, almost 99% of grand juries end up with the prosecutor getting the indictment that he wants, and the system allows him a secret proceeding with he is allowed to manipulate and present the evidence however he wants without any kind of scrutiny. That is what I call a sham of a criminal justice process. What is the exact purpose of having 12 jurors being mindlessly led by the prosecutor just so they can agree with his one-sided presentation 99.5% of the time at the end. There's nothing "fair" about that. You might as well get rid of the process all together because it seems to serve no actual purpose than being a "American legal tradition". I think in special cases, especially high profile cases like this, there should be a process where the prosecutor's decision to indict is not blindly agreed upon by 12 people that hears and nods their heads at the prosecutor's presentation.
I'm sorry, but the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that criminal trials and pre-trial proceedings that function similarly to a criminal trial should be open to the press and public. And if you are in effect arguing that pre-trial proceedings should perform more like trials, then you are placing yourself in a delicate position with regards to future proceedings, if they proceed in the same closed manner as Ferguson has. FYI, I've moved on from Noah Feldman's opinion---because apparently all opinions are worthless. Please read the following consideration of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the topic and rebut that if you wish. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...shadow_trial_violates_the_public_s_right.html
Please read more carefully. I find it amusing how you've moved up from impropriety to legal matters now. Treeman, sometimes it's just best to admit that you need to learn more about the legal system in your country. seriously. it would do you good.
LOL, I haven't "moved" anywhere, I have been asking you to demonstrate this for quite a while now. You cannot do it, which is why I keep asking. I am simply pointing out your inability to demonstrate that anything actionable has occurred here. And you keep obliging me. Here's a quick lesson on our judicial system and the rule of law in this country: one's opinion that something improper has occurred carries no weight, no consequence whatsoever in our system. You see, we have these things called "laws", and you have to actually break one in order for there to be any consequence. And the burden of proof is always on the accuser's side in this country, although I am not sure that is always the case in your neck of the woods. But since we are talking about America here and not Canada, we will concern ourselves with our rules and not yours, eh? And in ours, your opinion means Jack.
Not to derail you guys, since this is turning into an online fight rather than debate, but... That article, and the way it quoted the supreme court, is taken completely out of context. What the supreme court deemed unconstitutional was not the fact that pretrial procedure was functioning like a trial, but the fact that evidence presented pretrial (similar to this case) wasn't released to the public, especially since it was closed by request of the defendant. The fact that the writers of that article so grossly misquotes a public decision tells a lot about their agenda. If anything, that case supports the decision here, and the grand jury transcripts were released for the matter of openness, fairness and upholding the first amendment. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/478/1 Now please continue, this has been an entertaining train-wreck...
And just because this seems to be annoying you so much, I will ask again: Please demonstrate what law or procedural rule was violated by the prosecutor in this case. Keep in mind, accusations that something "improper" occurred are irrelevant... As soon as you can point to that law or rule that was violated, we can end this debate.
You have not remotely demonstrated that anything unconstitutional has occurred. Not even close. The closest you can come is trying to argue that this grand jury proceeding was conducted in the same way as a trial, which is absurd - unless you are also going to argue that cross examinations are not permitted in a trial. I have stated repeatedly that I from a legal standpoint the best course of action would have been to not pursue an indictment in the first place, but I understand why the prosecutor did it this way. You apparently do not, and would have preferred to see a case proceed to trial even though there was clearly insufficient evidence even for an indictment. Is that how you think things are supposed to work? Going ahead with a trial even in the face of clearly insufficient evidence? LOL... :grin:
You still have not explained why you think this case should have proceeded to trial even though there was insufficient evidence to obtain an indictment. This is not a small point, and it requires your comment. I am waiting.
Again, you don't answer any of my questions, you just refer to a Supreme Court statement as if that is the absolute truth or something. I am arguing that the current system is hilariously flawed. As far as "pretrial proceedings shouldn't be acting like a trial". That is very arbitrary, how does one define "acting" like a trial. And what is exactly the negative about "acting like a trial" other than the grand jury being a closed proceeding. I say that logically the old system of the grand jury being nothing but 12 people being forced to agree with a one sided presentation to decide if someone is charged or no billed is a sham. How can anyone sit there and argue that the system is fair as it is, and that it would have been entirely proper process to let one prosecutor decide if someone goes to trial or not.
Because trials are open to the public, and breed trust in a criminal system that is fair and impartial---something sorely needed here.
What is the exact purpose of an open trial? To ensure to a better degree trust that this was a fair and impartial process, instead of looking like a political decision to hide something of public interest. If you read the article, you would know what criterion I'm referring to.
See, I can break down your argument into one sentence: "Hey, they didn't do it the way that it's usually done!". That's it in a nutshell. But you cannot demonstrate that any law or procedural rule was violated, and if you (or anyone else) cannot demonstrate this then there is no basis for any challenge to the outcome. Now, if we had a case where you had the prosecutor withholding relevant evidence in order to avoid obtaining an indictment, then you would most definitely have a case to make here. But we had just the opposite - he threw it ALL out on the table for everyone to see. You and the left side of the biosphere think that is "improper", and you are welcome to your opinion. But it's irrelevant, and is not grounds for suit or any other action. You are one of the smarter libtards here (that's why you haven't landed on my ignore list yet), and I am sure that you understand this. I just have to ask why you won't acknowledge it?
Wtf? so you are saying a case where the person should have been released and written off as policy shooting should be forced to go into trial against the prosecutor's discretion is fair and impartial. Why is nobody complaining that the whole grand jury proceeding in this case was unfair to Darren Wilson because he should have been released without it.
So you would have preferred to put an innocent man on trial, stretch this circus out for months more, with the end result being so predictable - Wilson walking - just to... what, prove that the system was fair? Just to get this straight: you think "fair" involves a prosecutor pursuing charges against a man that he believes to be innocent? I just want to make sure that you understand what you are saying here. At any rate, everything presented at the grand jury proceeding has been made public. It's all there for everyone to see. Those who are interested can look, but we all know that the "protesters" aren't interested in actual justice, they just wanted to lynch whitey.
Ferguson is about a legal system that is broken for some. Ferguson is about broken trust that the system is unfair. You, of course, disavow that by having a closed proceeding that does not bear moral scrutiny now, and may not bear legal scrutiny either now or in the future. Why are you not complaining about the fact that out of thousands of people resisting arrest, a disproportionate amount of minorities die---and never get rule of law in any form?
Fair is proceeding according to precedent. It is precedent for a reason. Openness and transparency, as full as possible, matter, and always have in legal proceedings and the American tradition. Everything else you said is opinion, and a waste of our mutual time to address further.
