It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING: Smollett Orchestrated Attack, Sources Say

page: 10
70
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
So you are claiming that a grand jury is required everytime someone pleads not guilty?


That's not what I said, try reading it a couple more times, it was a very short sentence.


They do not have to have a grand jury in order to arrest someone and charge them.


They do in fact need a grand jury when it is a state or federal felony charge. An arrest is not the same as being charged with a crime, that's the grand jury's job. The police do not charge you.



Feel free to join reality.


Take your own advice and learn how the law actually functions.




posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

No
It appears you are.
Garbage.
Why hasn't fox fired this hateful racist jackass?


You should not let you political leanings force judgement on myself.

I am not in favor of hate crimes fake or staged nor am i in favor of political divide you are laying in.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

You should not defend race crime haxers.

But you have been there before.
Par for your course.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

LOL

Stop posting false information.

You can be charged with a crime without a grand jury charging you.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


Yeah, via preliminary hearing which no self-respecting prosecutor will use. Other than that all felonies need to go via grand jury.

Unless you live on some fantasy planet where this doesn't apply.


Felony charges

If the charges are felony crimes, the prosecutor must present the evidence to a grand jury or to a judge in a hearing known as a probable cause or preliminary hearing.





edit on 18-2-2019 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

You should not defend race crime haxers.

But you have been there before.
Par for your course.


You seem belligerent. I have never been to Chicago.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


Yeah, via preliminary hearing which no self-respecting prosecutor will use. Other than that all felonies need to go via grand jury.

Unless you live on some fantasy planet where this doesn't apply.


Felony charges

If the charges are felony crimes, the prosecutor must present the evidence to a grand jury or to a judge in a hearing known as a probable cause or preliminary hearing.






Nice spin to move the goal post.


The fact stands that if they had proper evidence then jussie would be charged at this point.


We are viewing a he said she said lovers quarrel.IMO



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


Yeah, via preliminary hearing which no self-respecting prosecutor will use. Other than that all felonies need to go via grand jury.

Unless you live on some fantasy planet where this doesn't apply.


Felony charges

If the charges are felony crimes, the prosecutor must present the evidence to a grand jury or to a judge in a hearing known as a probable cause or preliminary hearing.






Nice spin to move the goal post.


The fact stands that if they had proper evidence then jussie would be charged at this point.


We are viewing a he said she said lovers quarrel.IMO


how exactly are you privy to what evidence they have and don't have?



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
The fact stands that if they had proper evidence then jussie would be charged at this point.


How can the grand jury charge him without it being presented? I know you screwed this part of it up so maybe once you understand how our legal system works (are you even from here?) get back to us.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
how exactly are you privy to what evidence they have and don't have?


He claims to be using 'common sense' which to me appears to be in very short supply.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I am privy to the same evidence you are and yet you all have decided the case. I am pointing out the obvious here.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: network dude
how exactly are you privy to what evidence they have and don't have?


He claims to be using 'common sense' which to me appears to be in very short supply.


If they had a text that showed collusion between the parties then jussie would be hauled in.


You like that word.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
I am privy to the same evidence you are and yet you all have decided the case.


I think you're projecting since you're the one saying it's only a he said/she said lovers quarrel without knowing all the evidence.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Is the "obvious" supposed to be that you don't know how the legal system operates?.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
If they had a text that showed collusion between the parties then jussie would be hauled in.


Would they? Are you assuming you know how the detectives are operating? Do you think it would make more sense to get him in and ask him in a situation where he's on record either confirming or denying this?

That was rhetorical by the way since you like 'common sense' and that would be the common sense approach for an iron clad referral to the prosecutor if he were in fact hoaxing this.




edit on 18-2-2019 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
If they had a text that showed collusion between the parties then jussie would be hauled in.


Would they? Are you assuming you know how the detectives are operating? Do you think it would make more sense to get him in and ask him in a situation where he's on record either confirming or denying this?

That was rhetorical by the way since you like 'common sense' and that would be the common sense approach for an iron clad referral to the prosecutor if he were in fact hoaxing this.





That is hogwash.

You think they need jussie to double down on his claims? He has been clear on his position.







He said she said.








If the grand jury is presented with basically what has been presented to us then i will guess that the two will be held accountable and jussie will not be charged with anything.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Is the "obvious" supposed to be that you don't know how the legal system operates?.


Clear as muddy water you are. Say what you mean.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
You think they need jussie to double down on his claims? He has been clear on his position.


Yes, that is how, in light of additional investigative returns, police cases operate. But I can see why you wouldn't know this since you've already demonstrated a staggering incapacity for understanding how the legal system in the United States functions.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
If they had a text that showed collusion between the parties then jussie would be hauled in.


Would they? Are you assuming you know how the detectives are operating? Do you think it would make more sense to get him in and ask him in a situation where he's on record either confirming or denying this?

That was rhetorical by the way since you like 'common sense' and that would be the common sense approach for an iron clad referral to the prosecutor if he were in fact hoaxing this.





That is hogwash.

You think they need jussie to double down on his claims? He has been clear on his position.







He said she said.








If the grand jury is presented with basically what has been presented to us then i will guess that the two will be held accountable and jussie will not be charged with anything.


You keep believing that. Smollett started and led this conspiracy of a so called attack.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
You think they need jussie to double down on his claims? He has been clear on his position.


Yes, that is how, in light of additional investigative returns, police cases operate. But I can see why you wouldn't know this since you've already demonstrated a staggering incapacity for understanding how the legal system in the United States functions.


You've already demonstrated a staggering incapacity for understanding how the legal system in the United States functions.




top topics



 
70
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join