- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 6/12/14 at 3:30 pm to LSUNV
It's so funny to read y'all arguing about something that isn't even important...
LSUNV, you're backtracking on what you said... They just quoted it on the last page
LSUNV, you're backtracking on what you said... They just quoted it on the last page
Posted on 6/12/14 at 3:30 pm to LSUNV
quote:
but the issuance of a warrant was a direct result of that which was stated in the next post
THIS is what you don't get. no it wasn't. the issuance of a warrant REQUIRES probable cause. That probable cause had already met its burden prior to him even speaking with investigators. This is why him skipping the meeting was irrelevant. They already had what they needed to attain probable cause and thus issue a warrant for his arrest. What they were hoping, it appears, was a voluntary statement given to them without the aid of counsel so they could have more evidence to use prior to him acquiring an attorney, who likely advise Mills to keep his mouth shut for the duration of the proceedings.
Bottom line: his skipping the appointment and refusing to speak to the investigator did not lead to the decision to arrest. That had already been decided. They are not a court of law. They only need probable cause and not beyond any reasonable doubt but just that there is evidence to support a reasonable belief a crime could have been committed. Key word being could.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 3:31 pm to lsufball19
quote:
it doesn't have an adverse effect on his prosecution whatsoever. yet you continue to address it as if it's relevant. it's not. it had no effect on the decision to charge, only the timing of it. he was going to be charged regardless. they just wanted more than they had and hope that Mills made an incriminating statement. he has a constitutional right not to give a voluntary statement and also has the constitutional right not to have his refusal to give a voluntary statement, protecting his 5th amendment rights, not used against him in the course of his prosecution. you asserting that it had any effect, whatsoever, is just not correct. this is very basic criminal procedure law.
Absolutely agree, and after the police got the new information
It is unlikely charges will filed. Even though showing up did not hurt him legally and in no way effects his case my point was had he shown up for the meeting and gave the true side of what actually occurred and witness statements along with it the warrant would not have been issued and some of this could have been avoided.
This post was edited on 6/12/14 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 6/12/14 at 3:32 pm to LSUNV
That's incorrect. His no showing (again, he has a constitutional right to do that) has no bearing on the warrant being issued.
He was going to be charged regardless as previously stated. The no show has no bearing on it.
He was going to be charged regardless as previously stated. The no show has no bearing on it.
This post was edited on 6/12/14 at 3:37 pm
Posted on 6/12/14 at 3:35 pm to LSUNV
quote:
had he shown up for the meeting and gave the true side of what actually occurred and witness statements along with it the warrant would not have been issued and some of this could have been avoided
That's for the prosecutor to decide, not the investigator deciding whether or not to charge. Once the victim pressed charges and the investigator had facts to support the charge, Mills was going to be charged, regardless if he denied it and claimed he had witnesses. It will now be up to the prosecutor on whether to indict, higher burden, and given the new information he has, he may not, in fact, proceed any further. We'll see
This post was edited on 6/12/14 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 6/12/14 at 3:36 pm to Mr. Hangover
quote:
LSUNV, you're backtracking on what you said... They just quoted it on the last page
Yeah the first statement was incorrect. After talking with my buddy he straightened me out on it
Posted on 6/12/14 at 3:40 pm to lsufball19
quote:
That's for the prosecutor to decide, not the investigator deciding whether or not to charge. Once the victim pressed charges and the investigator had facts to support the charge, Mills was going to be charged, regardless if he denied it and claimed he had witnesses. It will now be up to the prosecutor on whether to indict, higher burden, and given the new information he has, he may not, in fact, proceed any further. We'll see
I agree, I stated DA was unlikely to file charges given new information and I was using the wrong terminology I should have said cancelled the arrest warrant not the issue of it
This post was edited on 6/12/14 at 3:50 pm
Posted on 6/12/14 at 3:50 pm to LSUNV
quote:
I should have said canceled the arrest warrant not the issue of it
that's not the prosecutor's job. he can choose not to indict the charges once they land on his desk, though. and he can still do that now.
This post was edited on 6/12/14 at 3:51 pm
Posted on 6/12/14 at 3:54 pm to lsufball19
The op still hasn't updated. He should be banned
Posted on 6/12/14 at 3:57 pm to lsufball19
quote:
that's not the prosecutor's job. he can dismiss the charges once they land on his desk, though. and he can still do that now.
Just for future purposes, what terminology should you use in conveying that to other people. Say an arrest warrant gets issued for someone's arrest before the police had the chance to speak with the accused and after they do they realize that the accuser was not being up front with facts because that is pretty much what I am trying to say here. Just want to avoid future misunderstandings
This post was edited on 6/12/14 at 4:00 pm
Posted on 6/12/14 at 3:57 pm to heartbreakTiger
quote:
The op still hasn't updated. He should be banned
Seriously though.
This guy just posted this and ran off???
Posted on 6/12/14 at 4:05 pm to LSUNV
quote:
Just for future purposes, what terminology should you use in conveying that to other people. Say an arrest warrant gets issued for someone's arrest before the police had the chance to speak with the accused and after they do they realize that the accuser was not being up front with facts because that is pretty much what I am trying to say here. Just want to avoid future misunderstandings
The terminology is that the prosecutor will chose not to indict the case, meaning the will not go forward with the prosecution. That is where we are with Mills, currently. And where we are now is where we would have been regardless. If the prosecutor doesn't believe he can get a Grand Jury to return a true bill of indictment and/or if he feels he will not be able to persuade a jury at trial, he could be likely to no longer pursue an indictment. At this point he also has the option to amend or reduce the charges as well.
This post was edited on 6/12/14 at 4:07 pm
Posted on 6/12/14 at 4:07 pm to Duckie
quote:
I mean, what a weird story.
Agreed. Doesn't make sense. Why would he do that?
Posted on 6/12/14 at 4:07 pm to heartbreakTiger
quote:Admin can do it. RA for an update.
The op still hasn't updated. He should be banned
Posted on 6/12/14 at 4:07 pm to lsu2006
quote:
Seriously though.
This guy just posted this and ran off???
Haha it's like any news outlet. They are more concerned with being the one to break the story than with actually reporting all the facts. He's probably ecstatic he started a 40+ page thread, facts and updates be damned.
Posted on 6/12/14 at 4:11 pm to TheShwenz
i believe him, yo...i dont know why but i do.. 
Posted on 6/12/14 at 4:21 pm to lsufball19
quote:
The terminology is that the prosecutor will chose not to indict the case, meaning the will not go forward with the prosecution. That is where we are with Mills, currently. And where we are now is where we would have been regardless. If the prosecutor doesn't believe he can get a Grand Jury to return a true bill of indictment and/or if he feels he will not be able to persuade a jury at trial, he could be likely to no longer pursue an indictment. At this point he also has the option to amend or reduce the charges as well.
So what happens when they find out the accused was innocent and the accuser was not being totally upfront with the truth and the DA believes the accused not the accuser. Can the accuser be charged with something
Posted on 6/12/14 at 4:31 pm to LSUNV
quote:
So what happens when they find out the accused was innocent and the accuser was not being totally upfront with the truth and the DA believes the accused not the accuser. Can the accuser be charged with something
she can but it rarely happens, especially in a case like this where the facts are so questionable from both sides. but yes, the prosecutor could decide to pursue charges for filing a false police report. but those are not very common as it's just more work for a relatively minor case. and it's very hard to prove unless is something egregious like the duke lacrosse team.
This post was edited on 6/12/14 at 4:32 pm
Posted on 6/12/14 at 4:37 pm to lsufball19
Page 47 of 56
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News