BLM London Protest

[thelastrosbif]

It's like me saying "I use modern slavery to become a billionaire, and I want people to worship me, but I do a lot of work for charidy, so it's all okay."

They are disgusting relics of a time when a few people become equivalent to billionaires and who encouraged slavery to become super wealthy.

You might as well put up statues to Hitler, he did a lot of charity work for the Hitler youth you know...

Godwin's Law in action

[Gibbon]

People who murder police officers do not regularly escape prosecution.

I wasn't arguing that... infact I wasn't arguing at all, just passing comment on the brutalising affects of everyday American policing.

[vetran]

You were awaiting examples of police officers who have escaped trial. I gave you some examples and you dishonestly changed your definition. to "legal process". Grand jury is part of the pre-trial process.

Do you understand this a bit better now?

You gave me one example. I have ripped it apart.


I provided the accepted definition of prosecution in the UK to post on CUK, note it may be different over here. The yanks use words different loik.

In the US yes they have the Grand jury legal process which decides if a trial should go ahead in a criminal case. A process that fits the English definition.This has a lower bar and is to prevent outrageous accusations coming to trial, there are a number of advantages to the prosecution in a Grand jury e.g. no defence lawyers , no exculpatory evidence, low bar of proof etc.

I am not sure why you believe that failing to gain an indictment (very unusual apparently) in an independent jury judged legal process demonstrates prejudice and lack of legal process. Maybe the case wasn't provable, why have none of the civil rights lawyers had a go?

If you said the CPS had decided not try something then I can see why you might suspect misbehaviour.

Escaped trial is not the same as were not put forward for trial by a jury of their peers.

[vetran]

I know it is the 99th percentile. But you didn't say that. You said 10% taller than usual. I was pulling you up on your sloppy use of dictionary definitions, as per your boorish challenge.

sniff sniff is that desperation?

So we can now agree your incorrect challenge of my completely acceptable use of the word Giant is proven and we can end your attempt to appear like you know what you are talking about?

oh goody!

[Old Greg]

You gave me one example. I have ripped it apart.


I provided the accepted definition of prosecution in the UK to post on CUK, note it may be different over here. The yanks use words different loik.

In the US yes they have the Grand jury legal process which decides if a trial should go ahead in a criminal case. A process that fits the English definition.This has a lower bar and is to prevent outrageous accusations coming to trial, there are a number of advantages to the prosecution in a Grand jury e.g. no defence lawyers , no exculpatory evidence, low bar of proof etc.

I am not sure why you believe that failing to gain an indictment (very unusual apparently) in an independent jury judged legal process demonstrates prejudice and lack of legal process. Maybe the case wasn't provable, why have none of the civil rights lawyers had a go?

If you said the CPS had decided not try something then I can see why you might suspect misbehaviour.

I've pasted the key sentence from your post below:

In the US yes they have the Grand jury legal process which decides if a trial should go ahead in a criminal case.

You have this muddled. It would be more accurate to say:

In the US yes they have the Grand jury legal process which decides if a case should go ahead in a criminal trial.

Take a look at this link: Steps In The Federal Criminal Process | USAO | Department of Justice

Steps In The Federal Criminal ProcessIn this section, you will learn mostly about how the criminal process works in the federal system. Each state has its own court system and set of rules for handling criminal cases. Here are a few examples of differences between the state and federal criminal processes:


Titles of people involved – State cases are brought by prosecutors or district attorneys; federal cases are brought by United States Attorneys. State court trial judges have a range of titles, but federal judges are called district court judges.
Federal magistrate judges are used in federal cases to hear initial matters (such as pre-trial motions), but they do not usually decide cases.
The use of grand juries to charge defendants is not required by all states, but it is a requirement in federal felony cases unless the defendant waives the grand jury indictment.
States and the federal government have laws making certain acts illegal, and each jurisdiction is responsible for setting punishments for committing those crimes. A state may punish a certain crime more harshly than the federal government (or vice versa), but a defendant can be charged and convicted under both systems.
The federal rules for criminal cases can be found in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which govern all aspects of criminal trials. Each state has its own similar rules.


The steps you will find here are not exhaustive. Some cases will be much simpler, and others will include many more steps. Please be sure to consult an attorney to better understand how (or if) the information presented here applies to your case.


Important steps in the federal criminal process:


Investigation
Charging
Initial Hearing/Arraignment
Discovery
Plea Bargaining
Preliminary Hearing
Pre-Trial Motions
Trial
Post-Trial Motions
Sentencing
Appeal

So we can clearly see that charging is a step a long way before trial.

If we want to udnerstand charging, we can see that this is where the Grand Jury fits in: Charging | USAO | Department of Justice

ChargingAfter the prosecutor studies the information from investigators and the information he gathers from talking with the individuals involved, he decides whether to present the case to the grand jury. When a person is indicted, he is given formal notice that it is believed that he committed a crime. The indictment contains the basic information that informs the person of the charges against him.


For potential felony charges, a prosecutor will present the evidence to an impartial group of citizens called a grand jury. Witnesses may be called to testify, evidence is shown to the grand jury, and an outline of the case is presented to the grand jury members. The grand jury listens to the prosecutor and witnesses, and then votes in secret on whether they believe that enough evidence exists to charge the person with a crime. A grand jury may decide not to charge an individual based upon the evidence, no indictment would come from the grand jury. All proceedings and statements made before a grand jury are sealed, meaning that only the people in the room have knowledge about who said what about whom. The grand jury is a constitutional requirement for certain types of crimes (meaning it is written in the United States Constitution) so that a group of citizens who do not know the defendant can make an unbiased decision about the evidence before voting to charge an individual with a crime.


Grand juries are made up of approximately 16-23 members. Their proceedings can only be attended by specific persons. For example, witnesses who are compelled to testify before the grand jury are not allowed to have an attorney present. At least twelve jurors must concur in order to issue an indictment.


States are not required to charge by use of a grand jury. Many do, but the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to only require the federal government to use grand juries for all felony crimes (federal misdemeanor charges do not have to come from the federal grand jury).


After the defendant is charged, he can either hire an attorney or if he is indigent he may choose to be represented by an attorney provided by the Government — a public defender — at no or minimal charge. The defendant’s attorney is referred to as the defense attorney. He assists the defendant in understanding the law and the facts of the case, and represents the defendant just as the prosecutor will represent the Government.


Venue
The location where the trial is held is called the venue, and federal cases are tried in a United States District Court. There are 94 district courts in the United States including the District of Columbia and territories. Many states have more than one district court so the venue will depend on where you live in the state. Within each district, there may be several courthouse locations. Click here to see if you can find the one closest to your neighborhood.

If we want to understand trial, then we can look at: Trial | USAO | Department of Justice

TrialAfter many weeks or months of preparation, the prosecutor is ready for the most important part of his job: the trial. The trial is a structured process where the facts of a case are presented to a jury, and they decide if the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charge offered. During trial, the prosecutor uses witnesses and evidence to prove to the jury that the defendant committed the crime(s). The defendant, represented by an attorney, also tells his side of the story using witnesses and evidence.


In a trial, the judge — the impartial person in charge of the trial — decides what evidence can be shown to the jury. A judge is similar to a referee in a game, he’s not there to play for one side or the other but to make sure the entire process is played fairly.


Jury Selection
At trial, one of the first things a prosecutor and defense attorney must do is the selection of jurors for the case. Jurors are selected to listen to the facts of the case and to determine if the defendant committed the crime. Twelve jurors are selected randomly from the jury pool (also called the “venire”), a list of potential jurors compiled from voter registration records of people living in the Federal district.


When selecting the jury, the prosecutor and defense attorney may not discriminate against any group of people. For example, the judge will not allow them to select only men or only women. A jury should represent all types of people, races, and cultures. Both lawyers are allowed to ask questions about their potential biases and may excuse jurors from service. Each side is allowed to excuse certain potential jurors without providing a reason by using a limited number of “peremptory challenges.”

[Snip]

Can you now see that the examples I provided did NOT go to trial, as per you request below?

Do please list a few of these officers that escaped trial.

[Old Greg]

sniff sniff is that desperation?

So we can now agree your incorrect challenge of my completely acceptable use of the word Giant is proven and we can end your attempt to appear like you know what you are talking about?

oh goody!

Show me where I challenged your use of the word 'Giant'.

[SueEllen]

I think we need a peace and reconciliation thread...

[malvolio]

It's like me saying "I use modern slavery to become a billionaire, and I want people to worship me, but I do a lot of work for charidy, so it's all okay."

They are disgusting relics of a time when a few people become equivalent to billionaires and who encouraged slavery to become super wealthy.

You might as well put up statues to Hitler, he did a lot of charity work for the Hitler youth you know...

Strike one for the stupid people...

No analogy at all. Slavery is illegal these days, and has been recognised as evil since the early-1800s when we were the first country to make active and effective moves to stamp it out. In 1700-odd, what we now call BAME people weren't actually recognised as human beings, much less worthy of humane treatment.

Historical perspective and context is important and relevant. As you just demonstrated.

[vetran]

WTFH originally challenged it, you joined in later.

It's your interpretation of the dictionary that is open to question, as is so often the case.

How have you decided that 10% taller than the average height is taller than usual? You can make a case that it is. You can make a case that 2% taller than the average height is taller than usual. But neither of these is a clear-cut definition. Because "usual" is not quantified in the definition you provide.

You probably need to find a medical dictionary definition of "giant" if you want a definition you can stand over with certainty.

You challenged my use of the dictionary definition Giant and tried to conflate it with gigantism an altogether different word. But we know accuracy is not you & WTFH's strong suit.

I am still waiting for a list of people that "escaped" trial especially anywhere there is any evidence of prejudice.

Possibly my definition of trial differs from the US. Lets take it as any formal, legal and independent review of the evidence with a Jury or a Judge to identify innocence or guilt.

[vetran]

Strike one for the stupid people...

No analogy at all. Slavery is illegal these days, and has been recognised as evil since the early-1800s when we were the first country to make active and effective moves to stamp it out. In 1700-odd, what we now call BAME people weren't actually recognised as human beings, much less worthy of humane treatment.

Historical perspective and context is important and relevant. As you just demonstrated.

second country, third sovereign entity.

CHRONOLOGY-Who banned slavery when? - Reuters

1792 - Denmark bans import of slaves to its West Indies colonies, although the law only took effect from 1803.

1777 - State of Vermont, an independent Republic after the American Revolution, becomes first sovereign state to abolish slavery