Ferguson

[Timsup2nothin]

"You need to have a conviction that's based on the evidence a jury would probably convict, and that kind of probable cause was lacking in this case. The media did a terrible job of whooping up a frenzy by misinforming the public about how indictments generally work," Dershowitz said.

Conviction = belief

If you substitute belief you get that the grand jury has to believe that the jury would probably convict, which directly contradicts the Handbook; which states that the question of guilt specifically does not enter into the grand jury's responsibility to determine if probable cause exists. Admittedly that was the handbook for federal grand jurors, but one more time if Missouri law varies too widely on this point they would have been corrected as unconstitutional a long time ago.

As I said, either you (or your source) butchered the quote, or Dershowitz has gone senile. Of course he is also a lawyer and may just be 'representing the client' with a little, ahem, vague representation of the interpretation. Hard to say who his client might be.

 

[Berzerker]

If you substitute belief you get that the grand jury has to believe that the jury would probably convict

"You need to have a conviction that's based on the evidence a jury would probably convict, and that kind of probable cause was lacking in this case.

The "You" in what Dershowitz said refers to the prosecution and "conviction" refers to that prosecutor's belief.

 

[caketastydelish]

I want to send money to help the peaceful demonstrations and possibly some useful stuff also. Could you please give me a cue whom I should address or what site to look on the matter?

I'm not sure if this is legitimate, but it might be. <Link removed>

Moderator Action: Please don't post links to donation sites, especially ones that "might not be legitimate".
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The "You" in what Dershowitz said refers to the prosecution and "conviction" refers to that prosecutor's belief.

BS. The prosecutor's 'beliefs' have nothing to do with a grand jury hearing. If he was saying that the prosecutor needed to believe thus and so to say the case was ready to seek an indictment, fine, but he is clearly talking about the grand jury hearing, and at a grand jury hearing the only beliefs that matter belong to the jurors. And the only thing that matters about their belief is probable cause regarding a crime probably happening, not any issues of guilt.

This is really simple...if he didn't believe he had a case then he had no valid legal reason to seek an indictment. If he opted to pretend he had a case and seek an indictment to 'appease the mob' then he needed to follow through with the pretense and take it as far as the evidence would allow. Getting an indictment should have been a slam dunk. A trial against the quality of defense that Wilson would have had would have been very hard to win. By pretending he had a case to appease the mob, and then blowing it at a stage that he could easily have passed and revealing the pretense all he has done is infuriate the mob.

 

[MobBoss]

Flying Pig has completely made my argument for me. The point of the grand jury is not to show enough evidence to convict in a trial. It is merely to show enough evidence to prove that a trial should take place. But by all means, continue to shift the goalposts.

Again, if you cant show me something from Missouri state law that indicated the Prosecutor was outside of his responsibility you have no argument.

You alleged you read the law. But yet, when I ask you to link to the specific part of the code which validates your point, you cant.

I'm starting to think you didn't read it at all.

I did read it. And I posted the relevant part of the code to prove your premise wrong. You have no counter to that, and thus, no argument.

MobBoss doesn't shift the goal posts. He's pretended they were in the wrong place all along. Now he's upset because he can't just bluster people into agreeing with him, and he can't call down a higher authority to force us to.

Actually, Mobboss is the only one that has actually read the Missouri law on Grand Jury Prosecutor responsibilities, linked it, pasted it and proved his point was valid.

You? Well, you're trying hard to prove hot air is a method.

This ones over Tim. You lost.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This ones over Tim. You lost.

You hear that everybody else posting in the thread...MobBoss has spoken. Despite the number of you who clearly don't agree with him, he has won. Because he says so.



This is why I love arguing with you Mobbie, because eventually you always eat your feet.

 

[MobBoss]

You hear that everybody else posting in the thread...MobBoss has spoken. Despite the number of you who clearly don't agree with him, he has won. Because he says so.



This is why I love arguing with you Mobbie, because eventually you always eat your feet.

It's called links and proof Tim. Something I've given. All you've done is provide hot air, and emotion as a counter.

Oh...and smilies. However, that's even a weaker argument than what you allege of the Grand Jury Prosecutor.

Keep ragin on Tim. Not that it will make your argument any better, but hey, if it helps you get to sleep at night, well.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's called links and proof Tim. Something I've given. All you've done is provide hot air, and emotion as a counter.

Oh...and smilies. However, that's even a weaker argument than what you allege of the Grand Jury Prosecutor.

Keep ragin on Tim. Not that it will make your argument any better, but hey, if it helps you get to sleep at night, well.

Have you noticed that I'm far from alone in my side of this argument bub? I don't rage, I just recognize when there is nothing left to do but laugh at you. It's just like a barroom debate, there comes a point where all that is left is to laugh in their face and call it a day, because when the rest of the crowd is convinced there's nothing more to be accomplished.

 

[James Stuart]

Again, if you cant show me something from Missouri state law that indicated the Prosecutor was outside of his responsibility you have no argument.

You alleged you read the law. But yet, when I ask you to link to the specific part of the code which validates your point, you cant.

I'm starting to think you didn't read it at all.

I did read it. And I posted the relevant part of the code to prove your premise wrong. You have no counter to that, and thus, no argument.

Your interpretation of the law is not the law. In fact, conventions are essentially what most law is derived from these days. You claiming that I have no argument by arguing against an argument I never made does not invalidate my actual argument.

Also, you can take your claim that I lied about reading that page I linked and shove it. You can selectively bold portions of a law in an attempt to validate your argument if you like. I prefer to take the entir document into consideration than to cherry-pick, myself.

 

[MobBoss]

Have you noticed that I'm far from alone in my side of this argument bub? I don't rage, I just recognize when there is nothing left to do but laugh at you. It's just like a barroom debate, there comes a point where all that is left is to laugh in their face and call it a day, because when the rest of the crowd is convinced there's nothing more to be accomplished.

Numbers don't prove right....bub. Even you should realize that logical fallacy.

Or maybe not. But again, I always figured you for a 'numbers is right' kind of guy.

Your interpretation of the law is not the law. In fact, conventions are essentially what most law is derived from these days. You claiming that I have no argument by arguing against an argument I never made does not invalidate my actual argument.

Also, you can take your claim that I lied about reading that page I linked and shove it. You can selectively bold portions of a law in an attempt to validate your argument if you like. I prefer to take the entir document into consideration than to cherry-pick, myself.

You have yet to identify any specific code under the Grand Jury code that even remotely supports your position. You haven't even been able to cite a portion of the law to interpret! When asked, all you could do was provide a broken link to the general code cover Missouri's Grand Jury rules.

Rhetoric does not an argument make. You alleged you went and read up on it. If so, by all means, show me the parts of the actual code that support your argument - like I did for mine.

Don't cry about it - prove it. Or not. Up to you.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

James, right about now I'd consider it proven and laugh in his face, but that's just me.

 

[MobBoss]

James, right about now I'd consider it proven and laugh in his face, but that's just me.

Yeah, when faced with a superior argument, often ones only recourse is to laugh and claim victory anyway.

Way to go, Tim. I bet you never, ever lost in debate class with that tactic, did you?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah, when faced with a superior argument, often ones only recourse is to laugh and claim victory anyway.

Way to go, Tim. I bet you never, ever lost in debate class with that tactic, did you?

I think my reference to barroom debating would have given away that I'm not drawing from classroom experience. I'm guessing in a debate class we would eventually be judged by some observer as to who made the better argument.

James?

Nevermind, numbers don't matter, right bub? You're just satisfied you are right because you are...well...you.

 

[MobBoss]

I think my reference to barroom debating would have given away that I'm not drawing from classroom experience. I'm guessing in a debate class we would eventually be judged by some observer as to who made the better argument.

James?

Nevermind, numbers don't matter, right bub? You're just satisfied you are right because you are...well...you.

And the small fact that I provided cites from the Missouri state law that backed my argument.

You? Not so much.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And the small fact that I provided cites from the Missouri state law that backed my argument.

You? Not so much.

No wonder you stayed a paralegal doing paperwork, arguing a case you'd be useless. While you claim my argument is founded on my 'cop hate' the fact that people who don't hate cops can follow it is demonstrated. Your argument is so laced with 'if you stand on your head you can still see the cops as the good guys' that no number of cites can save it.

 

[MobBoss]

No wonder you stayed a paralegal doing paperwork, arguing a case you'd be useless. While you claim my argument is founded on my 'cop hate' the fact that people who don't hate cops can follow it is demonstrated. Your argument is so laced with 'if you stand on your head you can still see the cops as the good guys' that no number of cites can save it.

Your post history and feelings towards cops is well documented here. More than easy to prove.

Couple that with actual facts and cites from state law.......

It seems your only recourse remains to try continue that 'claim victory at all costs' tactic. If that's all you got then there really isn't any more to be said. At this point your only remaining counter is 'yeah, but...'.

Oh...and smilies. Lots and lots of smilies.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Your post history and feelings towards cops is well documented here. More than easy to prove.

Couple that with actual facts and cites from state law.......

It seems your only recourse remains to try continue that 'claim victory at all costs' tactic. If that's all you got then there really isn't any more to be said. At this point your only remaining counter is 'yeah, but...'.

Oh...and smilies. Lots and lots of smilies.

As I said, once the crowd in the bar has seen enough, there is nothing left to do but laugh in the other guys face. If you keep saying laughable things that's on you.

 

[James Stuart]

Numbers don't prove right....bub. Even you should realize that logical fallacy.

Or maybe not. But again, I always figured you for a 'numbers is right' kind of guy.



You have yet to identify any specific code under the Grand Jury code that even remotely supports your position. You haven't even been able to cite a portion of the law to interpret! When asked, all you could do was provide a broken link to the general code cover Missouri's Grand Jury rules.

Rhetoric does not an argument make. You alleged you went and read up on it. If so, by all means, show me the parts of the actual code that support your argument - like I did for mine.

Don't cry about it - prove it. Or not. Up to you.

As I have said multiple times, it is the interpretation of the code - the exact same sections you quoted, as a matter of fact - that determine that what the prosecution did was improper. Legal, mind you, but improper. I don't believe I have ever actually argued that the prosecution acted illegally - at least not in regards to this case, though throwing multiple cases against police officers may be another issue - merely that it was unethical. But, by all means, continue to claim you know better than Columbia Law School, which made the exact same argument as I did, and far more eloquently.

I'll give you a hint: it's the word cognizable. I had not come across this word before I read the code, so I looked it up. It means - and I'm sure that as a paralegal you know this better than I do, and that my dumbed-down definition pales in comparison to legal terminology - that anything viable to that body's jurisdiction should be considered. I do not consider that conflicting testimony that makes it harder for a prosecutor to get an indictment to be cognizable to a sitting of the grand jury.

You emboldened a sentence to prove me wrong that I would have emboldened to prove myself right. It would be interesting to see what other legal professionals on the boards - I haven't seen her post since my lurking days, but I believe Cleo is a lawyer, as is JollyRoger - think about our respective viewpoints. It would seem that most of the online sources I've looked at - and I did look into this at some length, as I believed there was a distinct possibility I misinterpreted a legal code from a foreign country - back up my argument, rather than your own. Perhaps that is due to Google being overwhelmed by this story; but when you go twenty pages deep and try multiple searches with slightly differing terms, and still come up with the same arguments from different sources, it's hard to continue to argue otherwise.

At this point I expect you'll simply claim to have won the argument and move on, but we both know that is not the case. But you can't get blood from a stone, and I cannot alter the opinion of someone who is dishonest with themselves, or unwilling to engage in a debate rationally. That goes for some of the people on the other side of this argument as well. Calm the hell down.

 

[Berzerker]

BS. The prosecutor's 'beliefs' have nothing to do with a grand jury hearing.

Dershowitz said the prosecutor needs to believe they have enough of a case to both indict and convict, thats the standard for probable cause prosecutors go by.

This is really simple...if he didn't believe he had a case then he had no valid legal reason to seek an indictment. If he opted to pretend he had a case and seek an indictment to 'appease the mob' then he needed to follow through with the pretense and take it as far as the evidence would allow.

By hiding the evidence?

Getting an indictment should have been a slam dunk. A trial against the quality of defense that Wilson would have had would have been very hard to win. By pretending he had a case to appease the mob, and then blowing it at a stage that he could easily have passed and revealing the pretense all he has done is infuriate the mob.

The mob was gonna be mad at an acquittal, the prosecution spared us that eventuality - or a wrongful conviction.

 

[James Stuart]

Dershowitz said the prosecutor needs to believe they have enough of a case to both indict and convict, thats the standard for probable cause prosecutors go by.

My reading, across multiple US states, not just Missouri, is that this is, in fact, a much higher standard than usual for a prosecutor.