Go for it

A) is basically is there enough evidence for a group of peers to believe you committed a crime, B) There must be more than before, C) And finally, The evidence in facts proves they committed it

I'm pretty sure that's not what reasonable doubt is.

I;ll come back to this in a bit. Too busy in general ^^;

Let's move over here, I think it's fair to say this is becoming a debate.

No one is taking life away except the individual taking their own life

Which is itself an abridgement of the citizen's privileges.

Thus, enforcing a law which allows it is a breach of the amendment.

The citizen has no right to determine their own actions upon oneself? That doesn't strike me as liberty.

There can be no laws which allow for the abridgement of citizen privileges. There is no caveat that the citizen is exempt from abridging their own privileges.

Thus, a citizen is not allowed to abridge their own privilege to life.

"You're not allowed to die. You must express yourself"

So, on the topic of grand jury.
1-correct
2-no. The defense has absolutely no role in a grand jury and the accused may not even know that charges are pending.
3- Grand jury is to prevent the tyranny of a district attorney. Any felony accusation must be deemed credible by a jury before prosecution can occur.
4- yes
5- Grand juries have a rather low bar. All we assess is whether if, assuming all the testimony and evidence is true, there is a credible case that could result in a guilty verdict.
6-Yes, the threshold is different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction
7- All I know is that they are citizens doing the best the can to perform their civic duty.

Does a grand jury convict?

Never

They simply act as gatekeepers to prosecution

Where is it written in the Constitution that we have a "privilege to life"?

Thank you for your answers

Ah. Well, if we do not, that simplifies things greatly.

So, a law that allows for the killing of individuals on the spot would then be a legitimate right of a state?

Due process

And would not be in conflict with the 14th amendment.

So, an individual kills himself, there is no problem with due process.

An individual kills another, and suddenly there is a problem with due process?

Why is that?

Because you can't prosecute a dead person.

Ah, so you admit they are breaking the law. It is simply impossible to punish them for it.

Sure.

So, allowing for assisted suicide *is* a breach of the 14th amendment.

I'll see where this leads

_Where is it written in the Constitution that we have a "privilege to life"?_
As far as I know it is not written in the constitution, but the Declaration of Independence.
_life, liberty and pursuit of happiness...._

If there is no law against suicide, I'm still not sure how we can say due process was violated

Murder being the unlawful killing of a human being with intent beforehand.

Thus, there is no legal divide between suicide and murder.

That is determioned by the wording of the statute

Wait, so an attempted suicide is attempted murder?

So, if suicide is legal, then a man may kill himself without concern for due process?

I would say yes.

Then, if murder is legal, a man may kill another man without concern for due process.

I'm curious to see where you take this next. I won't bite but for sake of argument let's just suppose I did for entertainment value.

Laws must be applied equally and with logical consistency. Anything less is corruption and a breakdown of governance.