http://www.thetoccoarecord.com/articles/2009/12/18/news/breaking_news/doc4b2bc6fe5ffd4104383173.txt

“The Grand Jury reviewed the entire investigative file of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and heard testimony from six witnesses, including Commander Kyle Bryant, Mountain Narcotics Criminal Investigation & Suppression Team (NCIS); Agent Chance Oxner, Mountain NCIS; Special Agent in Charge Mike Ayers, GBI; Special Agent Megan Miller, GBI; Agent Billy Shane Harrison, Mountain NCIS; and Charles J. (Joe) Key, expert in police use of force.”

http://www.truecrimereport.com/2009/12/reader_rev_jonathan_ayers_fami.php

Fixed said:

The news reports on this matter indicate that the grand jury only heard from the police officers involved and other “expert” law enforcement witnesses. It seems a little odd to me that none of the impartial witnesses present at the scene were brought before the grand jury. . . and it somewhat unsettling that a bunch of law enforcement officers would come out with guns drawn against a person who they had not first identified. If I were put in the same situation as Pastor Ayers, I believe I would have run for my life and acted just as he did. These officers were negligent and careless and should not be trusted with guns. It appears that the foxes were guarding the hen house at this grand jury proceeding !
Posted 12/21/2009 at 10:43:38 PM

http://www.thenortheastgeorgian.com/articles/2009/12/15/news/top_stories/01topstory.txt

“I am deeply disappointed, however, to now learn that the usual practice in presenting cases to a grand jury will not be followed concerning the death of my husband,” her statement reads.

“I understand that a first grand jury will be asked to consider the case and to give an advisory opinion on whether a second grand jury should be asked to receive evidence and decide whether to return any criminal indictments against the shooter and others responsible for Jonathan’s death,” her statement reads. “I feel that this tilts the system unfairly in favor of those whose conduct led to this tragic and shocking loss of my husband and his family, including his unborn child that I am bearing.”

“I intend to follow the law and all recourse available to me to see that justice is done, and that all those responsible for Jonathan’s death are held accountable,” her statement concludes.

Rickman responded to Ayers’ statement with the following written statement:

“The district attorney’s office will be presenting the full results of the investigation conducted by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation into the shooting death of Jonathan Ayers to the Stephens County Grand Jury for their review. The grand jury will be asked to determine whether the officer’s use of lethal force was justified under Georgia law and if not, whether criminal charges are supported by the evidence and Georgia law. This process is important for a fair and transparent review of the facts and circumstances of this tragic event by the citizen members of the Grand Jury.”

What did this “first” grand jury consider?

http://www.independentmail.com/news/2009/dec/18/police-say-burglary-ringleader-captured/

http://wneg32.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2080:ayers-case-file-opened&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=18

| Windy | December 22nd, 2009 at 5:01 am
Excuse me but isn’t the buying of votes a form of bribery? And isn’t holding back one’s vote until one gets concessions a form of extortion? And are those both not impeachable/prosecutable offenses?

Libertarians are soooo cute when they think that laws should apply to the boss class.

/snark

And can anybody tell me where Elle is getting her/his information?

Funny. Every time they have one of those state of the union gatherings a small part of me kinda wishes that one of those Roland Emmerich movie plots would unfold where the capitol gets flattened by a giant meteor, tidal wave, alien spaceship, and/or global warming-induced “thundersnow” hurricane.

When innocent people get killed/murdered by cops, I often wonder if the cops involved have a hard time getting over it.

Cops never kill innocent people, therefore they never have anything to get over.

A side note…after 25 years of voting, I have FINALLY been ordered to report for jury duty. Odds of being selected to sit on an actual jury:

If I say what they want to hear….50/50. If I am honest….0. By the way…my buddy recently got pulled over by the Mckinney police and they stole his cell phone…after tearing his car apart for 30 mins and finding nothing. No charges. He isn’t even sure why he got pulled over besides being african american. I believe him. I think I’m going to tell them what they want to hear so I can play too. Sorry for going off-topic but I was just all giddy with the news.

Continued from WHERE? Perhaps from your excuse for a brain?

Troll pwned. EPIC fail.

An honest court would look at the rights the government is required to honor, and see if government policies actually honor such rights in such fashion as to be meaningful. Unfortunately, many courts instead simply look to see if government policies give lip service to people’s rights. We need courts that will recognize that recognize that deliberate efforts to undermine people’s rights while giving some lip service to them are illegitimate. If the purpose of a government action is to make it difficult for someone to confront his accuser, the action is illegitimate even if it doesn’t make confrontation totally impossible.

It’s interesting to compare the rules of some sports with that of tournament bridge. In many sports, violations which the ref doesn’t catch aren’t violations, and it is perfectly proper for players to commit violations in the hope of getting away with them. Players may be admired for bending the rules and getting away with it. In bridge, deliberate violation or even bending of the rules is cheating; cheaters are not admired. I wish today’s government were more like bridge than the other sports.

If the prosecution calls a witness, the prosecution has to present its questions before the defense, and the defense can thus tailor its questions and arguments around those of the prosecution. If the defense calls the witness, the situation is reversed. A deceptive witness will be helped greatly by having the party that favors the witness get the last word.

Further, if the prosecution is allowed to introduce evidence from a witness and wait until after the jury has regarded it as “true” before the defense is allowed to challenge it, having the defense call the witness to the stand and immediately trying to tear him down isn’t going to win any points from the jury. Rebuttal needs to be immediate.

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/Lavonia+Minister+103009

See how that compares to her GBI interview…