Kraut783
SOF Support
No Grand Juries where you are? Here, all felonies have to be indicted.
National Protest and 'disband the cops' discussion (and now ICE)
- Thread starter Ooh-Rah
- Start date
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
All federal prosecutions require a grand jury to indict. All states have a grand jury system, but only about half require a grand jury to gain indictments.
Looks like Kentucky is a grand jury system for all felony indictments.
@Kraut783 specifically for Arizona, prosecutors can indict suspects without going to the grand jury, but the tool is there.
Kraut783
SOF Support
Gotcha, here there is no indictment prior to arrest (state side)...either probable cause or warrant arrest. Once the subject has been arrested, the case (felony) is filed and goes through the grand jury process.
The grand jury I was on we had the option to recommend charges based on the evidence we were given, which yes is all one sided. I have a feeling most don't know how they work in the general public.
The average person doesn't have a fucking clue with regards to how the entire legal process works, nevermind how law enforcement works, nevermind adult responsibilities in general outside of "mcdonalds, shitter, fornicate, repeat"
Florida173
SOF Support
Oof.. Stuff like this is a bit inconvenient for my friends on the left.
Proud Boys, Black Lives Matter leaders hold joint conference: We ‘denounce White supremacy’
Proud Boys, Black Lives Matter leaders hold joint conference: We ‘denounce White supremacy’
Locksteady
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2012
- Messages
- 706
There is nothing at all inconvenient for people on the left about leaders of a group accused of being white supremacists linking up with Black Lives Matter representatives to soundly and unequivocally denounce white supremacy.
In fact, if sincere it represents either an outspoken correction of a false accusation or an phenomenal development in the group ideology, and pulls one more group away from the umbrella of white supremacist organizations.
If there is any truth in the claim, then this is a great day for the left.
Florida173
SOF Support
Obviously the former over the latter since it's a pretty diverse group of guys.
Locksteady
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2012
- Messages
- 706
I'm not well-versed enough in the group itself to sort the rhetoric and media slant from the group's beliefs in practice (racial inclusion alone in no way precludes white supremacist ideology from being a central tenet of a group), which is why I introduced both possibilities.
I see either result as a positive development.
Florida173
SOF Support
Fair enough. I have some good friends that are in it. Like any group with a bunch of younger and overly eager individuals, they will get in trouble, but it always generally directly against ANTIFA. The entire organization is a by-product of black bloc groups like ANTIFA and is currently "led" by a Cuban-American.
That being said.. Having spent a lot of time in Miami, there is plenty of racial animosity between hispanics/latinos and blacks, but this isn't really a thing for Proud Boys from what I've seen.
ETA: The POTUS did clarify today that he condemns all white supremacists, and also the Proud Boys, but I don't see this amounting to much and more likely to be placating. The national protests can't get much more violent.
Locksteady
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2012
- Messages
- 706
As much as I hope this is as far as it goes, this is probably not the year to be ruling that out.
I will say when the group started under Gavin, it flirted much more with those who held supremacists beliefs than it does now. I think it was right around the Unit the Right really that the Proud Boys started pushing away from that and Gavin gave control of the group to Tarrio.
Florida173
SOF Support
Blizzard
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,335
I don't know where the George Floyd thread went, so I'll post this here:
Newly released video shows officer charged in George Floyd’s death helping man in wheelchair
This is interesting to me, in that, as someone here said previously, to paraphrase, "I don't care what happened before, I only care what took place during the incident". Early evidence showing Floyd putting drugs in his mouth during a 2019 traffic stop was not allowed under a similar premise, but this will be allowed?! For all practical purposes, this is the same type of situation. Interesting one was allowed and another wasn't.
Newly released video shows officer charged in George Floyd’s death helping man in wheelchair
This is interesting to me, in that, as someone here said previously, to paraphrase, "I don't care what happened before, I only care what took place during the incident". Early evidence showing Floyd putting drugs in his mouth during a 2019 traffic stop was not allowed under a similar premise, but this will be allowed?! For all practical purposes, this is the same type of situation. Interesting one was allowed and another wasn't.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 13,617
Did you happen to read the title of this thread, and then look at page 1 as it directs?
Blizzard
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,335
Yep...doesn't mention anything about George Floyd or his trial specifically. Do you see them the same topic as national protests and disband the cops? I don't. While his case may've been a catalyst for those things, the trial details certainly is a separate topic.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 13,617
Read the first page again.
And don’t get into a debate about semantics with me or any of the staff for that matter on this topic.
Patience level = zero
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
So typically in states that require a grand jury to indict felonies, an empaneled grand jury will be given evidence for multiple cases throughout the day for indictments. Usually between 15-20 and upwards of 40 sometimes in a day. The rates for indictments in this system is very high. The standard to indict with a grand jury is much lower than for a jury to convict. The standard for indictments is Probable Cause, which is the lowest standard in judicial practice for criminal cases.
In Civil cases you have four different standards.
My first point is that getting an indictment is the lowest for criminal standards of proof. Now to my second point, the grand jury recordings for the Breonna Taylor case are over 20 hours long. Usually Grand Juries have left and right limits, but unlike juries they are not bound by them. A jury cannot ask questions. Grand juries can and in effect can expand the scope for which charges can be place and indictments granted.
Breonna Taylor grand jury audio: Officers testified they knocked before entering
This is all important because the Commonwealth's Attorney and now the AG of Kentucky doesn't have the ability to indict someone on his own, Kentucky is a grand jury state, so the legal team on this case had intentions to take this to trial, otherwise there would be no grand jury. Which is different from Arizona (my location), we're not a grand jury state, therefore you don't need to use a grand jury to indict. Effectively if a Grand Jury chose not to indict in Arizona that could be considered a political shield tactic by the prosecution.
In Civil cases you have four different standards.
My first point is that getting an indictment is the lowest for criminal standards of proof. Now to my second point, the grand jury recordings for the Breonna Taylor case are over 20 hours long. Usually Grand Juries have left and right limits, but unlike juries they are not bound by them. A jury cannot ask questions. Grand juries can and in effect can expand the scope for which charges can be place and indictments granted.
Breonna Taylor grand jury audio: Officers testified they knocked before entering
This is all important because the Commonwealth's Attorney and now the AG of Kentucky doesn't have the ability to indict someone on his own, Kentucky is a grand jury state, so the legal team on this case had intentions to take this to trial, otherwise there would be no grand jury. Which is different from Arizona (my location), we're not a grand jury state, therefore you don't need to use a grand jury to indict. Effectively if a Grand Jury chose not to indict in Arizona that could be considered a political shield tactic by the prosecution.
Last edited:
Similar threads
