- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 93,974
- Reaction score
- 69,055
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
No, lawyers are notorious for kicking scientists off of juries.
And that is YOUR assumption. I'm guessing that you've never served on a jury, let alone tried a case to one?
One way we know is from the police report:
Police said in a 145-page investigative report that the intruder had knives in his pockets and one strapped to his ankle, but never posed a threat to Milanovic or the other men
Read more: Jury sides with burglar's family in 2009 shooting death at auto lot | jury, burglar, lot - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO
Obviously the defendants in this case could have held their fire unless or until the person inside tried to exit -- at minimum. It simply was not reasonable to shoot him through the closed door. If you don't get that then you just don't understand the legal standard.
so you, sitting in your mother's basement, know more about it than the jury members who were actually there and actually saw the evidence? that's just great!!!! can you also tell me who really killed JFK? what a freakin joke :lamo
Hindsight is wonderful. But try being in the situation. AFTER THE FACT, they were able to determine that he was no threat since he was ARMED with only knives. However, if you're the owners of the property, how do you know? When he took cover in the shed, it was just as probable that he had more than just knives on him, that he was preparing to retaliate. YOU obviously do not understand the legal standard since the standard was used and the State was unable to provide sufficient evidence to go ahead with a prosecution.
No, lawyers are notorious for kicking scientists off of juries.
Well, apparently you, sitting on your boyfriend's sticky water bed, no more about it than the civil jury who found that violated the law. Apparently with your vast legal knowledge you've missed the FACT that the standard of proof for a grand jury indictment is EXACTLY THE SAME as the standard for a civil verdict -- a preponderance of the evidence.
Hindsight is wonderful. But try being in the situation. AFTER THE FACT, they were able to determine that he was no threat since he was ARMED with only knives. However, if you're the owners of the property, how do you know? When he took cover in the shed, it was just as probable that he had more than just knives on him, that he was preparing to retaliate. YOU obviously do not understand the legal standard since the standard was used and the State was unable to provide sufficient evidence to go ahead with a prosecution.
They're also notorious for kicking lawyers off juries, but quite often they don't. That's how my wife got on the jury of a murder trial. Lifetime made a movie about her experience called "One Angry Juror."
Well, I am a lawyer, and I have both tried cases to juries and sat on juries, so I think I'm pretty familiar with the standard. As I mentioned above, FYI, the standard for the grand jury is the same standard that the civil court applied when the civil jury returned a verdict against the defendants. Two juries -- two different outcomes. One difference is that there was a full trial in the civil court, where both sides could present evidence.
This is ridiculous. The burglar didn't break into someone's home. He was on a used car lot, for crying out loud. He was trapped inside a shed. All these "what if he shot through the door, what if he came out with an axe" speculations don't mean ****. He didn't shoot through the door, he didn't run out with a weapon. He was trying to hide. The cops could have been called and the guy hauled off to prison. Instead he was executed, on a used car lot, for trying to break into one of the cars. Last I heard, that is not a capital crime.
I think a lot of folks here are just trolling for lulz. There is no way executing the guy in cold blood was warranted, and some of these posts would be chilling if they weren't just contrived bullcrap designed for ****s and giggles.
One way we know is from the police report:
Police said in a 145-page investigative report that the intruder had knives in his pockets and one strapped to his ankle, but never posed a threat to Milanovic or the other men
Read more: Jury sides with burglar's family in 2009 shooting death at auto lot | jury, burglar, lot - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO
Obviously the defendants in this case could have held their fire unless or until the person inside tried to exit -- at minimum. It simply was not reasonable to shoot him through the closed door. If you don't get that then you just don't understand the legal standard.
and again you show your ignorance. a judgement against you by a civil court does not a murderer make. please...for the love of God, look up the definition of fact.
so, since your wife sat on the jury of a murder trial once....you are an expert. thanks for making that appeal to authority (look up locial fallacies if it escapes you). now we all "get it"
Well, I am a lawyer, and I have both tried cases to juries and sat on juries, so I think I'm pretty familiar with the standard. As I mentioned above, FYI, the standard for the grand jury is the same standard that the civil court applied when the civil jury returned a verdict against the defendants. Two juries -- two different outcomes. One difference is that there was a full trial in the civil court, where both sides could present evidence.
AdamT I will still also LOVE to hear you explain how the man that shot the guy is more at fault than the guy who got shot for there being a fatherless little girl now.
This is just one of the things you seemed to ignore, dodge or talk around buy im VERY curious on your answer I think its going to be very entertaining.
To flashback it was brought up that there is no a fatherless girl because this guy (the father who was a burglar, drug addict and intruder) got shot while trespassing but a property owner and you said the property owner is more to blame than the father.
A police report is an analysis, it is not a statement of fact. The police report advances an argument that the writer, writing on behalf of the police, BELIEVES that the suspects never posed a threat.
A convincing rebuttal is for the accused to declare that he did find them a threat. He noticed that they were armed. That by itself is sufficient basis upon which to feel threatened. Police also feel threatened when they have to deal with armed people. One officer protects himself and his partner while the partner disarms a suspect, even if all they wish to do is talk to the suspect. Police will often shoot a suspect who is armed, but not an immediate threat to the officers, if the suspect doesn't comply with the police officer's orders to drop their weapon.
If you are armed and trespassing on someone's property it is quite reasonable for the property owner to assume that you are a threat. What the police are "arguing" is that the suspect was not an immediate threat. That's irrelevant. Non-immediate threats have a nasty way of becoming immediate threats very quickly. Police don't let suspects that they've stopped on the street keep their weapons on their body as they deal with police. The suspect doesn't need to be brandishing a weapon and threatening police, all the suspect needs to do is be in possession of a weapon and the police consider him a threat.
This report from the police is basically speculation on the state of mind of the accused and it tries to second guess on how the threat assessment should have been decided by using standards of risk assessment that police don't even use themselves when dealing with suspects.
Well, what makes me MORE of an expert than you is the fact that I went to law school and was a litigator. What's your legal experience, genius?
Civil court is reasonable doubt, criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt.
As for the difference, are you telling me Mr. Lawyer that in a grand jury the State is not allowed to bring forth evidence to prove the necessity for a trial?
Perponderance of evidence (that is, 51% likely) vs beyond reasonable doubt.Civil court is reasonable doubt, criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Let me type this slowly so you can hopefully understand: the standard of evidence for both a criminal grand jury and a civil trial is proof by a preponderance of the evidence. So what we have here is one grand jury, where a preliminary case was made, and a full trial, where the case was fully tried. The fact that the full trial found them at fault by a preponderance of the evidence suggests that a criminal indictment should have gone down.
Actually a defendant's statement about his subjective belief is NOT relevant, as it's an objective reasonable person standard.
If a paranoid schizophrenic believes that you are a CIA assassin who is about to garrot him on the street, his subjective belief does not give him the legal right to stick a knife in your heart.
The standard for a criminal TRIAL is beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard for a criminal INDICTMENT is preponderance of the evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?