Bottom Line: This was a bad situation. The Grand Jury after hearing ALL of the info made the correct decision.

I don't think many people expected otherwise. I certainly didn't expect an indictment. Grand juries 99 percent of the time do what the prosecutor desires. I'm not sure you're right about ALL the info, though. There might be some surprises during the civil side of this case.

His character being spit on had nothing to do with the DA's decision to indict or not. Can we all clearly understand this? Just like her character or speculation shouldnt have been used in determining it. However, it was. Hence the reason he didnt get indicted.

 

Jeeeesh

 

Her character had nothing to do with him not getting indicted. He was not indicted because the evidence supported that his actions were not criminal.

I don't think many people expected otherwise. I certainly didn't expect an indictment. Grand juries 99 percent of the time do what the prosecutor desires. I'm not sure you're right about ALL the info, though. There might be some surprises during the civil side of this case.

I'm not sure there will be a civil trial, in fact I'll be shocked if it goes to trial.

Just because someone that works for the government does something you may not agree with doesn't mean they are or should be held liable.

 

Just for discussion sake what percentage of blame would you place on the girl and what percent on the Deputy?

I don't think many people expected otherwise. I certainly didn't expect an indictment. Grand juries 99 percent of the time do what the prosecutor desires. I'm not sure you're right about ALL the info, though. There might be some surprises during the civil side of this case.

Special Prosecutors generally want to prosecute. The reason why they bring in someone from the outside is so there isn't any bias based on them knowing the person.

 

Grand Jury's almost to a fault will indict anyone. What the old saying, "I can get a ham sandwich indicted". In most cases if a Grand Jury doesn't Indict, the case is weak.

I don't think many people expected otherwise. I certainly didn't expect an indictment. Grand juries 99 percent of the time do what the prosecutor desires. I'm not sure you're right about ALL the info, though. There might be some surprises during the civil side of this case.

 

So that 99% of the time stat? Do you have a link to that stat or is it just more made up over exaggerated bull crap like most of your stories in here have been?

Special Prosecutors generally want to prosecute. The reason why they bring in someone from the outside is so there isn't any bias based on them knowing the person.

 

Grand Jury's almost to a fault will indict anyone. What the old saying, "I can get a ham sandwich indicted". In most cases if a Grand Jury doesn't Indict, the case is weak.

 

I do not know Officer Brockman, and I did not know Samantha Ramsey. I do, however, know about James Crawford (the special prosecutor), and the one thing I know is that he HATES to lose. If he thinks he has enough to win, he will be all over it, and heaven help you if you're the defendant. So, for anybody to insinuate that he went in there looking to get Brockman "off", you're out of your ever loving mind. If there was evidence there that could have led to a prosecution/conviction, you can bet your bottom dollar he's not covering it up.

 

All of which means, without the full knowledge of what the grand jury was presented with, I am fully confident in the system in this instance, and that our peers did the job they were called to do. Bottom line...no arguments with their decision.

So that 99% of the time stat? Do you have a link to that stat or is it just more made up over exaggerated bull crap like most of your stories in here have been?

Sorry my posts have offended. Grand juries are usually just rubber stamps for prosecutors. Public ain't welcome in the proceedings. The 99 percent figure is correct. Here's a piece that explains the process.

 

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7304&context=jclc

Sorry my posts have offended. Grand juries are usually just rubber stamps for prosecutors. Public ain't welcome in the proceedings. The 99 percent figure is correct. Here's a piece that explains the process.

 

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7304&context=jclc

 

I'd say sportsfan is familiar with the process. Just a guess though.

I'd say sportsfan is familiar with the process. Just a guess though.

 

:lol2:

Some states opt for a preliminary hearing system vs. grand jury in determining whether to bind over defendant for trial. State's case is outlined in public as opposed to keeping everything hush-hush in grand jury setting. A judge or magistrate determines whether there's enough evidence vs. defendant to send the case to trial. Public's interest here would have been better served in an open courtroom.

Special Prosecutors generally want to prosecute. The reason why they bring in someone from the outside is so there isn't any bias based on them knowing the person.

 

Grand Jury's almost to a fault will indict anyone. What the old saying, "I can get a ham sandwich indicted". In most cases if a Grand Jury doesn't Indict, the case is weak.

 

 

Not speaking about this case specifically at all, but I'd argue that there are plenty of times where special prosecutors are brought in with a wink and nod knowing that they are there for an acquittal.

 

A loose analogy would be the NFL appointing a "special prosecutor" to investigate Goodell and the league in the whole Ray Rice thing.

 

There are plenty of different reasons a special prosecutor might be brought in. I'd say that the effectiveness in picking a special prosecutor probably has much, much, much more to do with which side has more leverage in terms of bargaining power and/or influence in who gets appointed to the position than anything else.

 

Again, that's not speaking to this case at all, because I really don't know nothing about it and haven't read through the whole thread.

Black

I guess my source was pretty good?

I'm with guru from early in this thread, the civil case will be a dandy.

 

Not speaking about this case specifically at all, but I'd argue that there are plenty of times where special prosecutors are brought in with a wink and nod knowing that they are there for an acquittal.

 

A loose analogy would be the NFL appointing a "special prosecutor" to investigate Goodell and the league in the whole Ray Rice thing.

 

There are plenty of different reasons a special prosecutor might be brought in. I'd say that the effectiveness in picking a special prosecutor probably has much, much, much more to do with which side has more leverage in terms of bargaining power and/or influence in who gets appointed to the position than anything else.

 

Again, that's not speaking to this case at all, because I really don't know nothing about it and haven't read through the whole thread.

 

This wasn't a crooked lawyer being appointed by the NFL to investigate themselves in some corporate case.

 

It was a prosecutor brought in that wasn't connected and thus biased in the case.

I guess my source was pretty good?

I'm with guru from early in this thread, the civil case will be a dandy.

 

What percent blame do you put on her and what percent do you put on the deputy?