Breaking Report: Grand Jury to Take Place Tomorrow...Justice for Browns Family

[Missourian]

true or not i dont know

100.7 viper reports

Dorian Johnson has now admitted that Michael Brown attacked Officer Wilson and attempted to take his gun.

100.7 THE VIPER | Facebook

That's KFNS...might be misinformation, but likely not a hoax.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The prosecutor doesn't have to call him to the grand jury hearing.... How fair is that?

or they can

and he does not have the right to remain silent

how fair is that

 

[jon_berzerk]

That's KFNS...might be misinformation, but likely not a hoax.

they say on food sources & made other accurate claims early on

i dont know

 

[Gracie]

I imagine if the officer is railroaded, there will be protests the likes of which haven't been seen around these parts in some time.

There better be.

 

[Missourian]

they say on food sources & made other accurate claims early on

i dont know

Me either.

We can only hope.

 

[Jackson]

or they can

and he does not have the right to remain silent

how fair is that

If I understand the process correctly, the prosecutor would not call him because it would not advance his case. But if the Grand Jury is "investigative" in nature, which it may be, they (the jury) may be able to subpoena people they want to hear from and that would be the one witness they would want to hear from.

 

[Politico]

Jay Nixon is talking about "Justice for the Brown Family.. What happened for Justice for the police officer? There has to be Justice FOR ALL!

There would have to be an investigation completed for that. That hasn't happened.

 

[Jackson]

There would have to be an investigation completed for that. That hasn't happened.

You're right. It is way too early for a Grand Jury.

 

[Katzndogz]

Ben Crump is already demanding the information on the Grand Jurors. He's objecting to the secret nature of Grand Jury proceedings.

They need to be threatened to come up with the "right" decision.

 

[blastoff]

The star witness just admitted that BROWN attacked Wilson and reached for his gun.

Open and shut case in Wilson favor!

But that's not what reverend Al said! And he's a reverend and all.

 

[dannyboys]

do any of you know what a grand jury is?

Ever heard of 'Goggle'?
I'm not doing your research for you.

 

[dannyboys]

The prosecutor doesn't have to call him to the grand jury hearing.... How fair is that?

But he will. The Pros. wants this to go to trial like he wants to eat a bowl of maggots.
What's he going to do when the GJ rules there is no evidence of any wrong doing on the cop's part?
He's going to throw a huge BBQ in celebration.

 

[dannyboys]

If I understand the process correctly, the prosecutor would not call him because it would not advance his case. But if the Grand Jury is "investigative" in nature, which it may be, they (the jury) may be able to subpoena people they want to hear from and that would be the one witness they would want to hear from.

The pros. has already invited Wilson to testify if he wishes to.

 

[Jackson]

The pros. has already invited Wilson to testify if he wishes to.

That's great to hear! Do you have a link?

 

[Jackson]

But he will. The Pros. wants this to go to trial like he wants to eat a bowl of maggots.
What's he going to do when the GJ rules there is no evidence of any wrong doing on the cop's part?
He's going to throw a huge BBQ in celebration.

do you think so? But he's a prosecutor! He's beholden to the voters. And that may mean the black votes. I certainly hope your right.

Come to think of it, it's better not to get a bill from the Grand Jury than to lose a celebrated trial against the Police Officer. Think your are right!

 

[DigitalDrifter]

There will be tremendous pressure to get an indictment. It's going to happen one way or another.

 

[Moonglow]

Now Police Chief Says Cop Realized During Stop That Michael Brown Robbed A Store

Read more: Chief Changes His Story Again | The Daily Caller

 

[Mad Scientist]

do any of you know what a grand jury is?

It's LIKE a Jury only Bigger! No sh*t!

You local town or city should have a Grand Jury that meets every so often.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Grand jury
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A grand jury is a legal body that is empowered to conduct official proceedings to investigate potential criminal conduct and to determine whether criminal charges should be brought. A grand jury may compel the production of documents and may compel the sworn testimony of witnesses to appear before it. A grand jury is separate from the courts, which do not preside over its functioning.[1]

Currently, only the United States retains grand juries, although some other common law jurisdictions formerly employed them, and most other jurisdictions employ some other type of preliminary hearing. Grand juries perform both accusatory and investigatory functions. The investigatory functions of the grand jury include obtaining and reviewing documents and other evidence and hearing the sworn testimony of witnesses that appear before it. The grand jury's accusatory function is to determine whether or not there is probable cause to believe that one or more persons committed a certain offense within the venue of the district court. The "grand jury" in the United States is composed of 16 to 23 citizens. In Ireland, they also functioned as local government authorities.

A grand jury is so named because traditionally it has a greater number of jurors than a trial jury, also known as a petit (French for small) jury or, in English usage the spelling can be petty jury.[2]

United States
Main article: Grand juries in the United States


A grand jury investigating the fire that destroyed the Arcadia Hotel in Boston, Massachusetts in 1913.
In the early decades of the United States grand juries played a major role in public matters. During that period counties followed the traditional practice of requiring all decisions be made by at least twelve of the grand jurors, (e.g., for a twenty-three-person grand jury, twelve people would constitute a bare majority). Any citizen could bring a matter before a grand jury directly, from a public work that needed repair, to the delinquent conduct of a public official, to a complaint of a crime, and grand juries could conduct their own investigations. In that era most criminal prosecutions were conducted by private parties, either a law enforcement officer, a lawyer hired by a crime victim or his family, or even by laymen. A layman could bring a bill of indictment to the grand jury; if the grand jury found there was sufficient evidence for a trial, that the act was a crime under law, and that the court had jurisdiction, it would return the indictment to the complainant. The grand jury would then appoint the complaining party to exercise the authority of an attorney general, that is, one having a general power of attorney to represent the state in the case. The grand jury served to screen out incompetent or malicious prosecutions.[15] The advent of official public prosecutors in the later decades of the 19th century largely displaced private prosecutions.[16]

While all states currently have provisions for grand juries,[17] today approximately half of the states employ them[18] and twenty-two require their use, to varying extents.[19] The constitution of Pennsylvania required, between 1874 and 1968, that a grand jury indict all felonies (see Article 1, section 10).[15]

Now there is the research, how pathetic I have to hold your hands, how do you folks wipe your own ass??

Assault and Battery Laws

Assault and Battery Laws and Penalties Nationwide

Assault & Battery on a Police Officer
If you are accused of assault and battery on a police officer, you are facing felony assault charges, which could include mandatory minimum jail time, if convicted.

Charged with Assault & Battery? Please call (800) 922-6607.
Courts take charges of assault & battery on a police officer very seriously. But that doesn’t mean that the facts always support a felony level assault charge. Police can be wrong, misinterpret the situation, or overreact to a minor incident, misunderstanding or mistake.

What is Assault & Battery on a Police Officer?
When most people think of a charge of assault on a police officer, they imaging a violent confrontation, resisting arrest, and maybe even someone under the influence of drugs going crazy, and getting violent.

But many situations where someone ends up charged with assaulting a cop are much less dramatic, and more nuanced.

You can be charged with assault on a police offer if:

• You swing your arms to get away from a fight or other situation, and accidentally strike a police officer
• You drive to close to a police officer by the side of the road (assault with a vehicle is also consider assault with a dangerous/deadly weapon)
• Any minor physical contact during the course of an arrest

Sometimes if you are belligerent, angry, drunk, or otherwise just annoy the cop, a minor incident might be charged as a felony assault on an officer.

Cops are people too, and they can get angry, annoyed, frightened, or just make mistakes in a stressful situation.

And being a police officer is inherently a dangerous job, so they are likely to not take kindly to any perceived threat.

And, of course, some criminal perpetrators are violent and dangerous. No one would suggest that most of the time when a criminal charge of assault and battery on a police officer is filed, that it is a mistake, or an overreaction. But it does happen.

When you discuss these charges with your lawyer, and go over them in court with a prosecutor, cooler heads may prevail, and there are often opportunities to get this charge reduced down to a misdemeanor simple assault. If the incident was charged in a heat of the moment, stressful situation, the district attorney may be able to come to an agreement with the officer to get the charges reduced, based on the facts as reported, witness statements, or as part of a plea deal.

No matter how it happened, any felony assault on a police officer charge is a very serious matter to be worked out with the help of an experienced criminal defense lawyer on your side.

Resisting Arrest When Police Use Excessive Force
In most states, arrestees can resist arrest only in limited circumstances.

It’s rare that someone being placed under arrest has the right to forcefully resist. But in most states, if the arresting officer uses excessive force that could cause “great bodily harm,” the arrestee has the right to defend him or herself. That’s because most states hold that an officer’s use of excessive force amounts to assault or battery, which a victim has a right to defend against. (To learn about other scenarios in which defendants may be entitled to resist, see Resisting Arrest: Laws, Penalties, and Defense. Also see What to Do and Not Do When Arrested and Battery Against a Police Officer.)

Excessive Force
An officer’s use of force is “excessive” if it is likely to result in unjustifiable great bodily harm (serious injury). Most states consider whether a “reasonable person” under the circumstances would have believed that the officer’s use of force was likely to cause great physical harm (including death). If the answer is “yes”—if a reasonable person would have felt it necessary to resist in self-defense, and if that person used a reasonable degree of force when resisting, then the resistance is typically justified. But this is a very high standard to meet, such that courts hardly ever find that an arrestee’s forceful resistance was defensible.

How Much Force?
On the rare occasion that a court finds that an arrestee was entitled to resist excessive force, the determination shifts to whether the amount of force he or she used was appropriate. Although the precise rules vary by state, in general, the amount of force used to resist arrest must be proportional to the amount of excess force used by the arresting officer.

Exceptions to a Narrow Rule
The circumstances under which a person is justified in resisting excessively forceful arrest are rare, even rarer due to some important exceptions. States created these exceptions to discourage people from fighting with police. These exceptions include:

• Abatement. If the officer stops using excessive force, then the arrestee must stop resisting.
• Resistance that prolongs excessive force. If the person being arrested has reason to believe that, if he stops resisting, the officer will stop using excessive force, then he must stop resisting.
• Resistance that causes excessive force. If the person being arrested did something to cause the officer to use excessive force in the first place, then she isn’t justified in resisting the arrest.

To illustrate how tricky the resistance issue can be, suppose that an officer pulls Jesse over for reckless driving. The officer gets out of his patrol car and orders Jesse to exit the vehicle and put his hands in the air. Jesse complies. The officer then tackles Jesse to the ground and repeatedly slams his head into the pavement. Under these circumstances, it would probably be reasonable for Jesse to resist the arrest—in some states, he may even be justified in using deadly force because of the threat to his life.

But if Jesse, rather than following the officer’s instructions, had charged at him, the analysis would be different. In that instance, he arguably provoked the officer’s violent response, in which case he wasn’t justified in resisting the unreasonably forceful arrest—he “caused” the officer’s use of force. However, if the officer had subdued Jesse but nevertheless continued to strike his head in the pavement, then Jesse may have been within his rights to resist.

See that highlighted text, that is what this case will come down to....
Was your boy "Big Mike" a "reasonable person" under anybodies definition??
Yes I know he was unarmed and the stories initially said he was surrendering, but when the fuck are you folks going to see reality here and admit this is just another dead thug who got what he deserved!!