Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 58

Thread: Pepper spray jury rules against Nichols

  1. #41
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,325

    Re: Pepper spray jury rules against Nichols

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    dunno. don't even know the case. Just making the point that it's weird if you think juries are never wrong.
    Juries do get it wrong from time to time. There is often a large grey area, especially when there isn't good evidence.

    Think about it. Even with the video and photo clearly showing the incident, her lawsuit was denied. If you watch the video, hard to see, but it looks like she attacked an officer first. Maybe she was only aware of the photo, and not the video when she brought the lawsuit forward.

  2. #42
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: Pepper spray jury rules against Nichols

    unlike those cops that peppersprayed those students sitting on a sidewalk on campus ( Berkeley?).. I think this situation warranted it.

    the mob was actively engaged in the rights denials of others.. and were completely noncompliant ..... pepper spray is pretty much how LEO's handle such stuff now.

    It could be much worse,they used to be warranted in using batons.... for the lady's pose in the picture, it would have been rather awkward to have a baton sticking out of the gigantic maw.

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Pepper spray jury rules against Nichols

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    I fail to see how this was not excessive force.
    Because you're a socialist.

  4. #44
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,598
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Pepper spray jury rules against Nichols

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    dunno. don't even know the case. Just making the point that it's weird if you think juries are never wrong.
    People here are confusing the difference between a "petit jury" used in actual trials, and grand juries used in the USA to determine if there is probable cause to charge a person with a crime. Although all States authorize them, only about half the States use them and only 22 require the use. Then there is a concern about their actual value:

    Rubber stamp for the prosecution:

    According to the American Bar Association (ABA), the grand jury has come under increasing criticism for being a mere "rubber stamp" for the prosecution without adequate procedural safeguards. Critics argue that the grand jury has largely lost its historic role as an independent bulwark protecting citizens from unfounded accusations by the government. Grand juries provide little protection to accused suspects and are much more useful to prosecutors. Grand juries have such broad subpoena power that they can investigate alleged crimes very thoroughly and often assist the prosecutor in his job. Grand juries sometimes compel witnesses to testify without the presence of their attorneys. Evidence uncovered during the grand jury investigation can be used by the prosecutor in a later trial. Grand jurors also often lack the ability and knowledge to judge sophisticated cases and complicated federal laws. This puts them at the mercy of very well trained and experienced federal prosecutors. Grand jurors often hear only the prosecutor's side of the case and are usually persuaded by them. Grand juries almost always indict people on the prosecutor's recommendation. A chief judge of New York State’s highest court, Sol Wachtler, once said that grand juries were so pliable that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” And William J. Campbell, a former federal district judge in Chicago, noted: “[T]oday, the grand jury is the total captive of the prosecutor who, if he is candid, will concede that he can indict anybody, at any time, for almost anything, before any grand jury.”
    Grand juries in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    So essentially we have a situation where a citizen is claiming a crime has been committed. However, the Prosecutor does not want to indict the police, and is the person who presents the evidence to the Grand Jury for a determination of whether or not a crime occurred. Small wonder the Grand Jury decided not to recommend prosecution.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  5. #45
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: Pepper spray jury rules against Nichols

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    People here are confusing the difference between a "petit jury" used in actual trials, and grand juries used in the USA to determine if there is probable cause to charge a person with a crime. Although all States authorize them, only about half the States use them and only 22 require the use. Then there is a concern about their actual value:



    Grand juries in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    So essentially we have a situation where a citizen is claiming a crime has been committed. However, the Prosecutor does not want to indict the police, and is the person who presents the evidence to the Grand Jury for a determination of whether or not a crime occurred. Small wonder the Grand Jury decided not to recommend prosecution.
    Why doesn't she swear out a warrant against the officer(s) involved in front of the magistrate and initiate it herself?

  6. #46
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,598
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Pepper spray jury rules against Nichols

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    Why doesn't she swear out a warrant against the officer(s) involved in front of the magistrate and initiate it herself?
    Good question. Perhaps she tried but could not find a magistrate willing to sign off on it, claiming insufficient cause? Even if she did mange to get an officer arrested, the Prosecutor is still the one who decides if there is enough evidence to proceed with charges. I think the use of the Grand Jury allows the Prosecutor to point the finger, even if he was the one who didn't want to charge the officer.
    Last edited by Captain Adverse; 08-10-13 at 07:59 PM.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  7. #47
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: Pepper spray jury rules against Nichols

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Good question. Perhaps she tried but could not find a magistrate willing to sign off on it, claiming insufficient cause? Even if she did mange to get an officer arrested, the Prosecutor is still the one who decides if there is enough evidence to proceed with charges. I think the use of the Grand Jury allows the Prosecutor to point the finger, even if he was the one who didn't want to charge the officer.
    Doubt she thought of it. I do not agree with her position--I believe they had every right to pepper spray her, but there are multiple ways to skin a cat. If she really feels that she was wronged criminally and a magistrate or prosecutor won't act, then she could petition the court for the seldom heard of Writ of Mandamus, make her case, and if the court agreed, the Judge could compel the prosecutor/magistrate to act (not that the court likely would given the circumstances), but at least she would have her day in Court

  8. #48
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,598
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Pepper spray jury rules against Nichols

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    Doubt she thought of it. I do not agree with her position--I believe they had every right to pepper spray her, but there are multiple ways to skin a cat. If she really feels that she was wronged criminally and a magistrate or prosecutor won't act, then she could petition the court for the seldom heard of Writ of Mandamus, make her case, and if the court agreed, the Judge could compel the prosecutor/magistrate to act (not that the court likely would given the circumstances), but at least she would have her day in Court
    I don't agree with her position either. My OP was to explain the difference between what most people think of when they hear the word "jury" and a Grand Jury.

    Of course, now I am confused a little about what went on here. It appears it might have been a civil action? I thought I read something about a grand jury refusing to indict for a criminal action? Anyway, now people know the difference between a Grand Jury and a "petit" jury, if nothing else. LOL
    Last edited by Captain Adverse; 08-10-13 at 08:17 PM.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  9. #49
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Pepper spray jury rules against Nichols

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Because you're a socialist.
    Of course.. Exactly what it is. My economic policy has direct correlation about my social philosophy.

    Please try again.


  10. #50
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: Pepper spray jury rules against Nichols

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    Doubt she thought of it. I do not agree with her position--I believe they had every right to pepper spray her, but there are multiple ways to skin a cat. If she really feels that she was wronged criminally and a magistrate or prosecutor won't act, then she could petition the court for the seldom heard of Writ of Mandamus, make her case, and if the court agreed, the Judge could compel the prosecutor/magistrate to act (not that the court likely would given the circumstances), but at least she would have her day in Court
    I think there is normally no way to force a prosecutor to indict someone. In some cases its due to what is called discretionary acts functions. IN other its either complete immunity or qualified immunity



Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •