He got what he deserved

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:49 am

spot;1396323 wrote: On the contrary, it's a disgusting reversion to the values of two hundred years ago. It's the reasoning behind the current spate of honor killings. You should be utterly ashamed to even think that way much less encourage others to go down the same road.

Tell ya what, spot. If you catch a 47-year-old man molesting a 4-year-old girl, pick up a rock and crush the pervert's ****ing skull. I'll buy you a beer.

You can be ashamed by yourself.

theia · Post by **theia** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:59 am

None of us knows what we would do if we saw our children or grandchildren being molested. I imagine I would do anything to protect them and to stop the molestation...but I don't know what form that would take and I pray I shall never have to find out.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:08 am

Amen, Theia! And I would hope that you wouldn't be castigated, whatever your actions.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:15 am

The worst threat to civilization on the planet are people who are prepared, for any reason whatever, to kill other people.

theia · Post by **theia** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:24 am

spot;1396338 wrote: The worst threat to civilization on the planet are people who are prepared, for any reason whatever, to kill other people.

And another threat, as I see it, are people who are arrogant enough to think they know how they will react in an unexpected situation.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:44 am

theia;1396357 wrote: And another threat, as I see it, are people who are arrogant enough to think they know how they will react in an unexpected situation.
I'm more certain I'd never kill anyone than I am of anything else.

eta: And, while we're on the subject, neither would I pay so much as a pound to a kidnapper.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:52 am

spot;1396358 wrote: I'm more certain I'd never kill anyone than I am of anything else.

eta: And, while we're on the subject, neither would I pay so much as a pound to a kidnapper.

I genuinely hope that you are never put to that test.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:56 am

LarsMac;1396360 wrote: I genuinely hope that you are never put to that test.

If I am, the responsibility will lie solely with the kidnapper. He can find his own way out of his dilemma, I'm certainly not going to help him fix things. People paying kidnappers is why kidnaps happen.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:27 am

spot;1396338 wrote: The worst threat to civilization on the planet are people who are prepared, for any reason whatever, to kill other people.

I have four daughters, two grand daughters, not forgetting an adopted daughter.

I am one of the least violent people I know......I have been known to raise my voice rather harshly and to throw a few obscenities about.

I had a nightmare long ago that still haunts me.

I am face to face with another man, we are enemies in uniform (it's a dream, not a lot of background involved)

I have an instant choice kill or be killed, I awoke sweating.....afraid of having such a dilemma.

I am not a very macho type, not what they call a 'mans man' don't hunt, shoot or fish, I can cry at silly movies and often do.

I don't believe I would beat a man to death should I happen upon him molesting any of my female off spring, but to be fair, I cannot say I wouldn't with 100% honesty.

It is very easy to take the high ground, but with some compassion and empathy, any fellow human being should be able to understand the basic reaction of a father to his 4 year old daughter's distress.

You don't have to condone the man's actions, to understand why, in that moment of sheer horror, helplessness, grief , and despair the father reacted in such a way.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:29 am

So, it occurs to me that Spot and AHSO! seem to interpret an understanding of what happened to a conscious condoning of the results of the man's action.

It is wrong to kill, no doubt. IF, as the news headline might infer, the father simply ignored his daughter to take the time to methodically beat the man to death, then yes, he was wrong and he should be severely punished.

But, the story does not say that is what happened.

The father reacted to an extreme condition, and may have struck in momentary anger. That is hardly in the same category as hunting someone down and taking their life because your pissed at them. Or beating your daughter to death because she dishonored you.

I am sure that the coroner will examine the dead pervert and if he finds that it was more that the father says, there will be further action.

Meanwhile, since neither of you has ever experienced the kind of thing that father did, I suggest you STFU and thank whatever fate or gods you personally hold dear that you have never been there, and pray to those same entities that on that subject you remain completely ignorant.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:56 am

My Father could not swim and for some reason had an Irrational fear of water which he avoided at all costs If he could.

When I was two years old, I fell Into the deep end of a swimming pool and by all accounts sank like a stone.

My Father could have stood around deliberating weather other people were better qualified to deal with the situation but I am Immensely proud of the fact that without fear or thought, he jumped In and grabbed hold of me, holding me up before him himself got Into trouble.

I think It's a perfect example of how we react when our offspring are In danger.... There for the grace of god, go I.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:07 pm

theia;1396357 wrote: And another threat, as I see it, are people who are arrogant enough to think they know how they will react in an unexpected situation.

Let's expand that... another threat are people arrogant enough to think they know best for all of humanity.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:16 pm

SnoozeAgain;1396381 wrote: Let's expand that... another threat are people arrogant enough to think they know best for all of humanity.

You refer to the US penchant for regime change, I presume.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:17 pm

I was referring to you and Ahso but if that works for you, fine.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:28 pm

SnoozeAgain;1396392 wrote: I was referring to you and Ahso but if that works for you, fine.

Is there any country on Earth that can run a single-party non-democratic government without interference from the US?

Oh... China. Okay, I wasn't thinking. Make that "small powerless single-party non-democratic government".

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:46 pm

spot;1396404 wrote: Is there any country on Earth that can run a single-party non-democratic government without interference from the US?

Oh... China. Okay, I wasn't thinking. Make that "small powerless single-party non-democratic government".

Girl gets molested, father gets upset and whacks the guy around, SPOT says I HATE AMERICA. IT'S ALL AMERICAS FAULT!!!!

Next thread.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:49 pm

YZGI;1396406 wrote: Girl gets molested, father gets upset and whacks the guy around, SPOT says I HATE AMERICA. IT'S ALL AMERICAS FAULT!!!!

Next thread. How about:

' Lying Texas police Officer Illegally shoots dead Chimp chewing face off Mastiff Dog while waiting for press conference In corrupt America' ?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:51 pm

oscar;1396407 wrote: How about:

' Lying Texas police Officer Illegally shoots dead Chimp chewing face off Mastiff Dog while waiting for press conference In corrupt America' ?

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

theia · Post by **theia** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:52 pm

oscar;1396407 wrote: How about:

' Lying Texas police Officer Illegally shoots dead Chimp chewing face off Mastiff Dog while waiting for press conference In corrupt America' ?

Now that is really funny :wah:

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:10 am

spot;1396358 wrote: I'm more certain I'd never kill anyone than I am of anything else.

eta: And, while we're on the subject, neither would I pay so much as a pound to a kidnapper.

There is a big difference between premeditated murder and someone killing in self defence or in defence of a child. I suspect you would take action to protect yourself or a family member if they were attacked. You could push someone away or pull them off and they fall and crack their skull on a stone or something. At this point none of us know the level of violence used, I can understand the father being angry enough to smash the guys head against the nearest hard object or throwing him across the barn - it doesn't actually take very much to cause enough damage to kill someone. It's foolish on your part to say you never would kill even the most even tempered of people can lose it in some circumstances - it's a primal defence mechanism flight or fight we all have it. I hope you never get a chance to find out what you would do.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:29 am

gmc;1396457 wrote: I can understand the father being angry enough to smash the guys head against the nearest hard object or throwing him across the barn.I don't believe either spot or I said we don't understand the anger. There appears to be a difference in what that means however. The one understanding is the fact that anger exists and we all experience it while the other understands that anger, and all emotions for that matter, coexists with conscience reason, which is unique to humans, and that the two must always be made aware of the other. This is what we strive to teach our young as they grow.

When an incident such as this one occurs we have to make judgments as a society as to where we failed to teach this father as he grew in concepts of both morality and self awareness. That is where I'm coming from here and I think spot's perspective is similar, though he can speak for himself.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:01 am

gmc;1396457 wrote: There is a big difference between premeditated murder and someone killing in self defence or in defence of a child. I suspect you would take action to protect yourself or a family member if they were attacked. You could push someone away or pull them off and they fall and crack their skull on a stone or something. At this point none of us know the level of violence used, I can understand the father being angry enough to smash the guys head against the nearest hard object or throwing him across the barn - it doesn't actually take very much to cause enough damage to kill someone. It's foolish on your part to say you never would kill even the most even tempered of people can lose it in some circumstances - it's a primal defence mechanism flight or fight we all have it. I hope you never get a chance to find out what you would do. That's so true.... About 2 years ago, a detective told me they had a case where only one punch was thrown... usual fisticuffs outside a pub but the guy fell backwards, hit his head on the kerb and died... It's quite frighteningly easy.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:17 am

I find something far more wrong with everyone automatically siding with an apparent victim when all that I've seen so far is "alleged", "said", and each report being unable to satisfy any doubt by jumping between "attempted" and "molested", I mean which is it? Does anyone know?

I honestly don't think this thread is a matter of justifying the father's actions as it should be the wish to see evidence. What does the medical report say?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:24 am

Ahso!;1396459 wrote: I don't believe either spot or I said we don't understand the anger. There appears to be a difference in what that means however. The one understanding is the fact that anger exists and we all experience it while the other understands that anger, and all emotions for that matter, coexists with conscience reason, which is unique to humans, and that the two must always be made aware of the other. This is what we strive to teach our young as they grow.

When an incident such as this one occurs we have to make judgments as a society as to where we failed to teach this father as he grew in concepts of both morality and self awareness. That is where I'm coming from here and I think spot's perspective is similar, though he can speak for himself.

That's why we have a jury system particularly in trials where a death is involved. A jury of his peers who can look at the evidence and decide if the father's action was reasonable in the circumstances and take in to account any mitigating circumstances. The law recognises different degrees of killing due to circumstances murder is not the same as manslaughter. The effect of seeing your child being attacked is a mitigating factor that any jury with half a brain amongst them would realise and take in to account. If you and spot cannot appreciate that the father may have acted in a fit of blind rage due to the circumstances and that that should be taken in to account I hope you never get to sit on a jury. The law and most people on a jury recognises that at times circumstances can drive out all the restraints of civilised behaviour that would have stopped the father acting as he did. We don't know how the man died - whether he was beaten to death in a fit of rage or whether he just got thrown against a wall or something ans banged his head. If he was held and slaughtered that would be a whole different ballgame but at this point the information is not available. I don't have much truck with those that assume the killing was justified without knowing all the facts either.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:31 am

gmc;1396817 wrote: That's why we have a jury system particularly in trials where a death is involved. A jury of his peers who can look at the evidence and decide if the father's action was reasonable in the circumstances and take in to account any mitigating circumstances. The law recognises different degrees of killing due to circumstances murder is not the same as manslaughter. The effect of seeing your child being attacked is a mitigating factor that any jury with half a brain amongst them would realise and take in to account. If you and spot cannot appreciate that the father may have acted in a fit of blind rage due to the circumstances and that that should be taken in to account I hope you never get to sit on a jury. The law and most people on a jury recognises that at times circumstances can drive out all the restraints of civilised behaviour that would have stopped the father acting as he did. We don't know how the man died - whether he was beaten to death in a fit of rage or whether he just got thrown against a wall or something ans banged his head. If he was held and slaughtered that would be a whole different ballgame but at this point the information is not available. I don't have much truck with those that assume the killing was justified without knowing all the facts either. From what I glean from this mate, It appears you are spot on.

This article states the Father struck him in the head several times and the guy died.... you're right... It's not a murder case If there was no Intent to kill. According to this, the case Is to be referred to the Grand Jury first.

Grand jury to get case of Texas dad who beat alleged child molester to death | Fox News

And you're right again... the circumstances will play a very large part In any prosecution or conviction.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 5:33 am

Here we are, all done and dusted, no charges. In England we put matters like this to a court of law and let a jury evaluate the evidence. The US appears to still use an abbreviated process called Grand Jury, something we abolished eighty years ago.

Dad won't face charges in alleged attacker's death

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:21 am

Good.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:31 am

spot;1397077 wrote: Here we are, all done and dusted, no charges. In England we put matters like this to a court of law and let a jury evaluate the evidence. The US appears to still use an abbreviated process called Grand Jury, something we abolished eighty years ago.

Dad won't face charges in alleged attacker's death

Why waste more tax money. If the grand jury won't prosecute what makes you think a judge or jury would convict? Just because you abolished something 80 years ago doesn't necessarily make it right, just makes it different.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:34 am

Ya feel bad for the family, but glad that it has turned out the best they could hope for.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:45 am

YZGI;1397081 wrote: Why waste more tax money. If the grand jury won't prosecute what makes you think a judge or jury would convict? Just because you abolished something 80 years ago doesn't necessarily make it right, just makes it different.

To answer that you merely need to consider the difference between a Grand Jury hearing and a trial before a judge and jury. Either a homicide invariably deserves the full attention of a court or it doesn't. In the USA it evidently doesn't.

The function of the Grand Jury was taken over in England by a government department, the Crown Prosecution Service, to decide whether to go to trial based on the likelihood of conviction given the evidence presented by the police based on a full investigation. It means the investigation has to happen first. My understanding of a Grand Jury is that the question put is "should we investigate this fully" based on preliminary police work.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:29 am

Here's the only part I disagree with

"It's sad a man had to die," said Michael James Veit, 48, who lives across the street from where the attack happened in this small community run on ranching and the Shiner beer brewery. "But I think anybody would have done that."

I don't think it is sad a man had to die. I think it is sad that this father has to live with it for the rest of his life. I think it is sad that the daughter has to live with this the rest of her life.

This dead man was 48. Anyone who thinks he suddenly went off his nut and this was his first assault is delusional. IMO the man should have died years ago.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:29 am

spot;1397084 wrote: To answer that you merely need to consider the difference between a Grand Jury hearing and a trial before a judge and jury. Either a homicide invariably deserves the full attention of a court or it doesn't. In the USA it evidently doesn't.

The function of the Grand Jury was taken over in England by a government department, the Crown Prosecution Service, to decide whether to go to trial based on the likelihood of conviction given the evidence presented by the police based on a full investigation. It means the investigation has to happen first. My understanding of a Grand Jury is that the question put is "should we investigate this fully" based on preliminary police work.

What is a Grand Jury

A grand jury is a group of citizens, usually chosen from the same pool as trial jurors, that is sworn in by a court to hear a case. The grand jury is composed of not less than 12 and not more than 23 persons; and in the Federal courts, the number shall not be less than 16 nor more than 23.

Grand juries differ from trial juries (which consist of 12 jurors) in other significant ways: • Unlike trial juries, grand juries can indict with only a majority (not unanimous) vote.

• Trial juries decide whether a defendent is guilty or not guilty of a crime. A grand jury listens to evidence and decides if someone should be charged with a crime. Thus the grand jury determines probable cause, not "guilt" or "innocence". According to the American Bar Association: Since the role of the grand jury is only to determine probable cause, there is no need for the jury to hear all the evidence, or even conflicting evidence. It is left to the good faith of the prosecutor to present conflicting evidence

The Grand Jury in the United States

To have evidence introduced there had to be some investigation.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:36 am

But not, as your quote indicates, a full one. I think what I wrote is pretty accurate: My understanding of a Grand Jury is that the question put is "should we investigate this fully" based on preliminary police work. If they say go ahead to trial I'm sure the police then do a lot more investigating.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:43 am

spot;1397087 wrote: But not, as your quote indicates, a full one. I think what I wrote is pretty accurate: My understanding of a Grand Jury is that the question put is "should we investigate this fully" based on preliminary police work. If they say go ahead to trial I'm sure the police then do a lot more investigating.

Where did it say there was a semi investigation? Or only a partial investigation? Why in the world would they not investigate fully before taking it to the grand jury. The only way to properly bring it before a grand jury is to investigate then introduce evidence from the investigation. It sounds like you think that they just decide what to do on what they heard down at the tavern.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:53 am

YZGI;1397088 wrote: Where did it say there was a semi investigation? Or only a partial investigation? Why in the world would they not investigate fully before taking it to the grand jury. The only way to properly bring it before a grand jury is to investigate then introduce evidence from the investigation. It sounds like you think that they just decide what to do on what they heard down at the tavern.

I believe the US and UK are very different with Crown Prosecution and Grand Jury.

I have seen cases In the US where law enforcement has had to have water tight evidence such as forensics before being able to go to the Grand Jury. Where as here, the police can actually have nothing In the hope the accused will confess and accept a caution. It's when the accused won't confess or accept any guilt that then the police have to Investigate further.

If any thing the UK system Is the draconian one...

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:00 am

YZGI;1397088 wrote: Where did it say there was a semi investigation? Or only a partial investigation? Why in the world would they not investigate fully before taking it to the grand jury. The only way to properly bring it before a grand jury is to investigate then introduce evidence from the investigation. It sounds like you think that they just decide what to do on what they heard down at the tavern.
I'm basing it on the way Grand Jury verdicts are reported in the press - here's typical phrasing off the first google hits... PER the Chief Prosecutor's request for Indictment, the two persons named by San Diego Citizens Grand Jury as showing probable cause for further investigation ...

In a presentment, the grand jury asks the district attorney to further investigate, and if the DA finds enough evidence to proceed,

5 Jun 2012 ... RALEIGH -- A Wake County grand jury has asked the district attorney to investigate possible charges against a former district court judge

"It could just mean that the prosecutor needs the powers of the grand jury" to further his investigation and make a final determination whether to charge, said Dan

RAEFORD — A Hoke County grand jury has ruled that there is probable cause to believe a sheriff's deputy committed voluntary manslaughter when he shot a man on Labor Day weekend. The grand jurors recommended Tuesday that the Hoke County District Attorney's office investigate into the shooting of David Michael Sivak further.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:01 am

oscar;1397090 wrote: I believe the US and UK are very different with Crown Prosecution and Grand Jury.

I have seen cases In the US where law enforcement has had to have water tight evidence such as forensics before being able to go to the Grand Jury. Where as here, the police can actually have nothing In the hope the accused will confess and accept a caution. It's when the accused won't confess or accept any guilt that then the police have to Investigate further.

If any thing the UK system Is the draconian one...

The thing is. Here you get no defense during the grand jury. The prosecutor is the only one introducing evidence and it is usually all the evidence against the defendant and for prosecution. So, if the grand jury decides on not prosecuting they have done so with all the evidence against the defendant and still feel a conviction is not likely.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:05 am

spot;1397084 wrote: To answer that you merely need to consider the difference between a Grand Jury hearing and a trial before a judge and jury. Either a homicide invariably deserves the full attention of a court or it doesn't. In the USA it evidently doesn't.

The function of the Grand Jury was taken over in England by a government department, the Crown Prosecution Service, to decide whether to go to trial based on the likelihood of conviction given the evidence presented by the police based on a full investigation. It means the investigation has to happen first. My understanding of a Grand Jury is that the question put is "should we investigate this fully" based on preliminary police work.

spot;1397093 wrote: I'm basing it on the way Grand Jury verdicts are reported in the press - here's typical phrasing off the first google hits... PER the Chief Prosecutor's request for Indictment, the two persons named by San Diego Citizens Grand Jury as showing probable cause for further investigation ...

In a presentment, the grand jury asks the district attorney to further investigate, and if the DA finds enough evidence to proceed,

5 Jun 2012 ... RALEIGH -- A Wake County grand jury has asked the district attorney to investigate possible charges against a former district court judge

"It could just mean that the prosecutor needs the powers of the grand jury" to further his investigation and make a final determination whether to charge, said Dan

RAEFORD — A Hoke County grand jury has ruled that there is probable cause to believe a sheriff's deputy committed voluntary manslaughter when he shot a man on Labor Day weekend. The grand jurors recommended Tuesday that the Hoke County District Attorney's office investigate into the shooting of David Michael Sivak further.

So are you saying that if a defendant is charged in the UK after the Crown whatever decides to charge them, that there is no more investigation into the matter what so ever because it has been done completely with no other possible evidence to be found?

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:10 am

YZGI;1397095 wrote: So are you saying that if a defendant is charged in the UK after the Crown whatever decides to charge them, that there is no more investigation into the matter what so ever because it has been done completely with no other possible evidence to be found?
There's no reason to push to "what so ever", I've no idea whether there are exceptions but in general, definitely that's how it works. The Crown will only allow a case to go to court if it feels there's a greater-than-even likelihood of conviction. They have a website which says so if you'd like a link. There may well be more evidence to be found in every case that ever was, but I don't see why it would be sought after a decision's been taken that the case is good enough to prosecute.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:12 am

YZGI;1397094 wrote: if the grand jury decides on not prosecuting they have done so with all the evidence against the defendant and still feel a conviction is not likely.

You gave a quote earlier, and your quote says just the reverse... "According to the American Bar Association: Since the role of the grand jury is only to determine probable cause, there is no need for the jury to hear all the evidence, or even conflicting evidence."

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:14 am

YZGI;1397094 wrote: The thing is. Here you get no defense during the grand jury. The prosecutor is the only one introducing evidence and it is usually all the evidence against the defendant and for prosecution. So, if the grand jury decides on not prosecuting they have done so with all the evidence against the defendant and still feel a conviction is not likely. Not really. The UK Grand Jury being the Crown Prosecution only hears from the police officer who has arrested you and not from you at any point. This Is regardless of weather there Is cast Iron evidence.

The best example I can give you Is this........ woman gets charged with criminal damage for throwing youth's bike In the road. Youth says the bike Is damaged. Arresting and Investigating police Officer fails to go and view the bike. Fails to obtain any form of receipt for damage and repair from the youth. Fails to photograph youth's bike... no proof whatsoever, woman damaged bike... could have already been damaged If damaged at all.... Police Officer goes to Crown Prosecution and on his/her word decide to prosecute.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:22 am

oscar;1397099 wrote: Not really. The UK Grand Jury being the Crown Prosecution only hears from the police officer who has arrested you and not from you at any point. This Is regardless of weather there Is cast Iron evidence.

The best example I can give you Is this........ woman gets charged with criminal damage for throwing youth's bike In the road. Youth says the bike Is damaged. Arresting and Investigating police Officer fails to go and view the bike. Fails to obtain any form of receipt for damage and repair from the youth. Fails to photograph youth's bike... no proof whatsoever, woman damaged bike... could have already been damaged If damaged at all.... Police Officer goes to Crown Prosecution and on his/her word decide to prosecute.

Our system sounds more efficient.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:24 am

SnoozeAgain;1397101 wrote: Our system sounds more efficient. It Is Snooze. It Is.

I'll just add to my previous post:

Defence Lawyer then laughs his socks off and Crown Prosecution wastes an estimated £100,000 of tax payers money In a 4 day trial attempting to discover weather any damage to bike was down to woman, weather the bike was In deed damaged at all, why youth can not produce a receipt fr alleged damage and why police officer failed to find proof of alleged damage. Oh yeah, the UK system Is the best eh ?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:38 am

spot;1397098 wrote: You gave a quote earlier, and your quote says just the reverse... "According to the American Bar Association: Since the role of the grand jury is only to determine probable cause, there is no need for the jury to hear all the evidence, or even conflicting evidence."

Conflicting evidence. Thats the point. The conflicting evidence would be defensive. They only hear the damaging evidence. So the likelihood of prosecution is greater. Then as in the UK, if there are charges brought more investigation if needed follows. I can't really see the UK way of things is any different than the US. Am I missing something? They both check the evidence (which means there was an investigation) if they feel there is enough damaging evidence they charge with a crime. Then more investigation as needed then trial etc. etc. Sometimes the UK is not greater or better than the US in any given area, sometimes they are virtually the same, just with different names.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:51 am

YZGI;1397106 wrote: Conflicting evidence. Thats the point. The conflicting evidence would be defensive. They only hear the damaging evidence. So the likelihood of prosecution is greater. Then as in the UK, if there are charges brought more investigation if needed follows. I can't really see the UK way of things is any different than the US. Am I missing something? They both check the evidence (which means there was an investigation) if they feel there is enough damaging evidence they charge with a crime. Then more investigation as needed then trial etc. etc. Sometimes the UK is not greater or better than the US in any given area, sometimes they are virtually the same, just with different names.Here we are, this is the bit I had in mind...Prosecutors have to ask themselves the following two questions when they are making their decisions

Is there enough evidence against the defendant?

There must be enough evidence to provide a 'realistic prospect of conviction' against the defendant. A realistic prospect of conviction is an objective test. It means that a jury or bench of magistrates, or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the alleged charge. This is a different test from the one that the criminal courts must apply. Magistrates or a jury should only convict the defendant if they are sure that he or she is guilty.

When deciding whether there is enough evidence to prosecute, prosecutors must consider whether the evidence can be used in court and whether it is reliable. This means that they must assess the quality of the evidence from all witnesses before reaching a decision. Where it is considered that it would be helpful in assessing the reliability of a witness' evidence or in better understanding complex evidence, an appropriately trained and authorised prosecutor should conduct a pre-trial interview with the witness.A decision to drop a case does not mean that the prosecutor has decided to believe one witness and not believe another.

If there is not a realistic prospect of conviction, the case must not go ahead, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be.

If there is a realistic prospect of conviction, the prosecutor will ask the next question.

Is a prosecution required in the public interest?

It has never been the rule in this country that every criminal offence must automatically be prosecuted. For this reason, in each case, the prosecutor must consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.

The CPS : The decision to prosecute

I don't see that getting more evidence after that decision is a likely regular process.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:58 am

Ok Let's take this from the link Spot provided:

s there enough evidence against the defendant?

There must be enough evidence to provide a 'realistic prospect of conviction' against the defendant. A realistic prospect of conviction is an objective test. It means that a jury or bench of magistrates, or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the alleged charge. This is a different test from the one that the criminal courts must apply. Magistrates or a jury should only convict the defendant if they are sure that he or she is guilty.

When deciding whether there is enough evidence to prosecute, prosecutors must consider whether the evidence can be used in court and whether it is reliable. This means that they must assess the quality of the evidence from all witnesses before reaching a decision. Where it is considered that it would be helpful in assessing the reliability of a witness' evidence or in better understanding complex evidence, an appropriately trained and authorised prosecutor should conduct a pre-trial interview with the witness.A decision to drop a case does not mean that the prosecutor has decided to believe one witness and not believe another.

Sp In the case of woman throwing bike.... No receipt of damage. No witness who could say bike was not damaged before bike was thrown. No photograph to show that bike was In deed damaged at all.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:35 am

spot;1397113 wrote: Here we are, this is the bit I had in mind...Prosecutors have to ask themselves the following two questions when they are making their decisions

Is there enough evidence against the defendant?

There must be enough evidence to provide a 'realistic prospect of conviction' against the defendant. A realistic prospect of conviction is an objective test. It means that a jury or bench of magistrates, or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the alleged charge. This is a different test from the one that the criminal courts must apply. Magistrates or a jury should only convict the defendant if they are sure that he or she is guilty.

When deciding whether there is enough evidence to prosecute, prosecutors must consider whether the evidence can be used in court and whether it is reliable. This means that they must assess the quality of the evidence from all witnesses before reaching a decision. Where it is considered that it would be helpful in assessing the reliability of a witness' evidence or in better understanding complex evidence, an appropriately trained and authorised prosecutor should conduct a pre-trial interview with the witness.A decision to drop a case does not mean that the prosecutor has decided to believe one witness and not believe another.

If there is not a realistic prospect of conviction, the case must not go ahead, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be.

If there is a realistic prospect of conviction, the prosecutor will ask the next question.

Is a prosecution required in the public interest?

It has never been the rule in this country that every criminal offence must automatically be prosecuted. For this reason, in each case, the prosecutor must consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.

The CPS : The decision to prosecute

I don't see that getting more evidence after that decision is a likely regular process.

I don't see much difference if any. Both are after the same thing. If you see a dramatic difference its because thats what you want to see. I can't argue the color of the sky with a blind person because they are unable to see the forest for the trees.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:49 am

YZGI;1397116 wrote: I don't see much difference if any. Both are after the same thing. If you see a dramatic difference its because thats what you want to see. I can't argue the color of the sky with a blind person because they are unable to see the forest for the trees.
Surely the USA system Is the superior ? Going before a Grand Jury before It's decided you are to be prosecuted has to be a far democratic and fairer process than the arresting officer going to the Crown Prosecution withut you having any opportunity to defend yourself.

In this country, we have an appalling record of police officers lying.