the michael brown tragedy has garnered a lot of attention in the media recently highlighted.
by the recent county court decision to not indict the lone officer who did the shooting which caused the death of micheal brown.. .. now after more information of the event has been released openly to the public, we can evaluate upon are self.
in are own opinion toward was the law handed out in this particular event proportionately fair or to a professional standard ?.
There is no need to second guess the grand jury. It is what it is. But it has to be acknowledged that 8 of them may have wanted to indict. That's the point I'm making.
Reminds me of the 2/3 majority vote of the Governing Body to change Watchtower policy Ray Franz illustrated.
the michael brown tragedy has garnered a lot of attention in the media recently highlighted.
by the recent county court decision to not indict the lone officer who did the shooting which caused the death of micheal brown.. .. now after more information of the event has been released openly to the public, we can evaluate upon are self.
in are own opinion toward was the law handed out in this particular event proportionately fair or to a professional standard ?.
That means 8 could have been saying "indict" and it still could not happen. Or all 12 said "no". We will never know.
the michael brown tragedy has garnered a lot of attention in the media recently highlighted.
by the recent county court decision to not indict the lone officer who did the shooting which caused the death of micheal brown.. .. now after more information of the event has been released openly to the public, we can evaluate upon are self.
in are own opinion toward was the law handed out in this particular event proportionately fair or to a professional standard ?.
" Grand juries do not need a unanimous decision from all members to indict, but it does need a supermajority of 2/3 or 3/4 agreement for an indictment (depending on the jurisdiction). - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html#sthash.cWhngQj8.dpuf
the michael brown tragedy has garnered a lot of attention in the media recently highlighted.
by the recent county court decision to not indict the lone officer who did the shooting which caused the death of micheal brown.. .. now after more information of the event has been released openly to the public, we can evaluate upon are self.
in are own opinion toward was the law handed out in this particular event proportionately fair or to a professional standard ?.
At least 9 of 12 people? I thought only 4 were necessary to bring a no indictment?
after a thorough investigation and weighing of the evidence the grand jury has decided not to indict the officer.. the reaction so far seems as predicted - people refuse to accept that the result represents justice despite claims that is what they wanted.. there is now violence and vandalism, including gunshots.
let's hope the police contain the troublemakers.. .
Even citizens who are not law enforcement have the right to use deadly force in the USA to stop an attacker.
you know, the one that's only available by an official request to the boe in child custody cases.
anybody have a scan or link?.
it seems like the list of people who are accusing him of rape and sexual assault is growing every day.
i'm skeptical of single accusations but the number of people and the similar stories seem overwhelming now.. it's not a conviction but to the court of public opinion ... guilty?.
.
Tell that to the court of public opinion.....
it seems like the list of people who are accusing him of rape and sexual assault is growing every day.
i'm skeptical of single accusations but the number of people and the similar stories seem overwhelming now.. it's not a conviction but to the court of public opinion ... guilty?.
.
He's done in the public opinion court. It's a piling on now. My guess is he will remain absolutely silent.
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641.
Significant new authority? Is this similar to a PMQ? Could be reference to case law too I suppose. Maybe the judgement in San Diego.
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/14/why_the_internet_is_slowly_strangling_religion_partner/.
about mormons mostly.
the problem with witlesses is their eager ignorance and avoidance of critical thinking.. this is one big advantage over other religions.
Mormons are under the same edicts to avoid anti literature. Maybe because they are more "worldly" (patriotism, holidays, etc) they are more prone to examining and thinking critically.
