I need legal advice

I have no reason why you are even stating this. You are simply relating his entire posting, retelling what happened .Who said any of this to the contrary?

They did not DETERMINE he was threatening people. It was a FACT. An observation--and did not require a determination of guilt or innocence. It was an observable FACT--and it established probable cause. And that means they did their job in establishing probable cause---and it is NOT their job to determine who is innocent and who is guilty.

Gee....who would that "somebody" be? Hmmm... wait, I know. A JUDGE. Which is my point EXACTLY. The police established probable cause and a JUDGE agreed and determined there was not a finding of guilt but that probable cause did indeed exist ---which is what happens when you are arraigned before a judge.
Where was he delayed or denied justice? He received justice from a court of law in accordance with the Constitution. Where was he delayed justice?

Semantics do not make "determined the facts" into "determined his guilt". Only YOU would do that.

The police do not "determine" facts.

They observe and record facts. Determine facts--conclude, 'bring to an end by judicial means' facts? (per the legal definition--not my definition). Not a chance.

Observe and record incidents? Sure. DETERMINE facts? No way.


See N. W. Whitley v. George Seibel.

The bottom line is the poster feels as though the police and the DA should have made a determination of his innocence or guilt. That is clearly not their job to do so.

You are redirecting.

You said, Justice delayed is justice denied.

Where was the posters right to a fair trial (justice) delayed OR denied?

You declined to say.

By the consistently LONG time it takes to get anything through the court system. Try six years on a civil case or two years minimum on a criminal case. Now, YOU try living through the stress of either for that kind of time and YOU, TOO, WILL SEE THAT

JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED.

What a trite irrelevant observation.

The fact that the court system is back logged with thousands of defendants is not a reflection on the people in HIS particular situation.
His justice was not delayed any more than anyone else's nor was his right to a speedy trial denied.

And he DID get justice. He was not denied justice. It never happens quickly enough to suit those who are waiting for their day in court----but that does not mean justice was not served. How silly.

And no, I don't intend to ever be a defendant in a criminal case, but I have waited a year for a workmans comp claim that was ADMITTED the day my husband died. Waiting for his children to receive money to use to live on day to day was agonizing---surely a criminal defendant waiting for their day in court is no more agonizing than that. It takes time for me, it takes time for everyone.

I have another lawsuit that has been going on for five years now--actually a little longer. Continuance after continuance, a small town backed up with civil cases. Is it a quick as I would like it to be? Is it inconvenient heading back to a place I no longer live twice a year to hear the judge continue the case? Sure. It cost me time and money. But it is what it is.

Justice is not being delayed or denied for anyone. The poster said it took nine months to go to trial. While nine months to him seems like a lifetime, in the scope of the justice system it is nothing.

'Justice delayed is justice denied', a quote by William Gladstone, is used in context of YEARS and DECADES, not days and months. And it had nothing to do with this thread. The only thing using it did was allow you to commiserate with someone else who has run amok of the criminal justice system and is disgruntled because of it.

But even if you become a lawyer someday, you would find it very difficult to say that what he endured during those nine months was anything called justice.

Losing his job, his retirement fund, his good name, everything a person depends on gone because he didn't change the locks in the first place and pulled a gun to defend himself against someone who hurt him badly in a prior incident... and further, to be confronted by the police who didn't ask him any question other than did he pull the gun and aim it at them...

What happened to him was not justice. And it happened because of the TIME the court takes to bring a case to trial... it is that length of time that it takes a person whose salary is suddenly gone to spend down his entire retirement and also find that he can't get another job in the meantime... BECAUSE EVERYONE THINKS THAT IF THE PROSECUTOR BRINGS A CHARGE, YOU MUST BE GUILTY.

Personally, I think he went too far. But I think he should have had a shorter time-frame in which to stew. We all should. If a defendant NEEDS a longer time-frame in which to find evidence that is needed to defend him with, he should be able to get it. But he should also be able to ask for a speedy trial.

We just have no control and the courts are not getting better, they are getting worse. We need judges without elections to be beholding to people on their team. We need MORE judges and we need them to be required to attend refresher courses regularly. And someone must be put in charge of judicial review just to be sure the judge is doing his job... especially when they are above 70.

When a judge regularly lets the lawyers write conflicting court orders with no counsel from the bench, we are in reality WITHOUT A JUDGE. He is not doing his job. A judge needs to state what he thinks, embed the law in the summary of possible orders, and if he really doesn't want to do the work, sure, let the lawyers write the order. It might speed things up. But perhaps it would speed things up to get a younger judge.

But I've seen judges complain that their golf game is going to be hampered if the case drags into a full day... daring the lawyers to speak an extra syllable toward doing their duty to their client. That is just plainly wrong.

At least the court and jury found him not guilty... not innocent, but apparently they recognized that the prior harm this person had done was sufficient reason for him to fear for his own life... just not enough for the police to dig into previous behaviors. As you say, the question of guilt is for the court... and simply impossible for a policeman to interpret what is sufficient grounds for you to believe your life is in danger.

The most unbelievable thing is that they gave this creep the victim's home to live in during the course of his travails. The police should NOT have been able to say NO to the landlord attempting to evict.

Now you are addressing the issue of if this ever should have happened.

That wasn't what that whole justice delayed/denied thing was about.

Saying this happening to him isn't justice well may be true. But, to say in this case that 1. justice was delayed and 2. justice was denied is not supported by the facts as he related them.

The fact the court system is slow is just the status quo. However, that does not equate to some constitutional denial of his rights (ergo--justice denied).

Maybe the whole thing never should have happened. Maybe it was all a big misunderstanding. I don't know.

But that has nothing to do with the concept of justice being delayed or being denied. It well may not have been fair, but he was not denied justice. The system did what it was supposed to and he was found not guilty of the charges against him for which probable cause was established.

His RIGHT to a speedy trial was NOT denied. In your OPINION maybe it was but according to the law it was not.

It is MY OPINION that much of our court system is in need of an overhaul. So what!

You know, I would not say I disagree. But, it seems insincere to complain about it.

In specific tangible terms, what would you do to make it better? I suspect you have no ideas as to how---well, no ideas that are actually actionable.

If you want to do something, change it. Put actions to your words.

No one ever does. And complaining about the times it fails and never appreciating the times it does not is unproductive and a waste of time.

And, although it is an admittedly flawed system, it is still the best in the world, bar none.