We could mass petition a law that A)requires police to wear cameras B)Develop more Non-lethal options C)Enhances police training and equipment D)Creates a citizen board who can arbitrate legal action against police.
Counterpoint (and I can't believe I'm using a Scalia opinion for a point here, but hey): there is no requirement for a grand jury to be presented with exculpatory evidence or for the defendant to be allowed to testify in his defense, and those things happening is in fact exceedingly rare. That strongly suggests (to me, at least) that the prosecutor was trying to get the case to not go to trial.
Edit: I also love how that article is concerned about property damage from riots and injuries to police officers and not at all about injuries to protestors from rubber bullets and tear gas, or, y'know, that a kid got shot to death.
I suspect that the primary reason we've seen two failures at the grand jury is simply due to the quality of lawyers. The DAs office is usually pretty damn good. Public defenders are worthless. Even if not using a public defender, good defense lawyers are ridiculously expensive. If you're not wealthy, you're sending an inferior gladiator to fight for you in the colosseum. Regardless of evidence, it's extremely hard to have pollice verso turn for the defense.
Uh...it's the DA office that brings the charges against the police.
Which is pretty much the problem right there. District attorneys are dependent on police work and want to keep an amiable relationship with the police, thus they are reluctant to really go after officers and draw the ire of police brass.
None of these problems can be fixed while the legislative levels of government are corrupt and controlled by money. Really, no other political issue is even worth discussing because that one thing blocks all solutions to everything.
The violent revolution shortcut doesn't even work anymore since the cops were militarized. Yeah, they didn't just do it for no reason. Of course, it was mostly to line the pockets of defense contractors.
Yeah, I got nothing on this one. Either the prosecutor failed miserably to charge with an appropriate crime, or the grand jury was just ridiculously off base. If I were putting money on it, I'd go with the former.
We should have special investigators brought in for every case of police misconduct to avoid even the appearance that DAs are going to throw the case for the sake of police relations.
You've gotten be fucking kidding me. I'm still in favor of body cams but if Eric Garner's case couldn't get past a grand jury then it seems having video evidence doesn't even matter.
It probably wouldn't solve the root cause of police tensions but I wish police unions were illegal. The amount of disgusting moral behavior they defend makes me furious.
You've gotten be fucking kidding me. I'm still in favor of body cams but if Eric Garner's case couldn't get past a grand jury then it seems having video evidence doesn't even matter.
It probably wouldn't solve the root cause of police tensions but I wish police unions were illegal. The amount of disgusting moral behavior they defend makes me furious.
Removing police unions is not the answer. Not having them will have the exact opposite problem. That is, police officers as a labor force will be horribly abused the same way that college athletes and Wal-Mart employees are abused, perhaps even worse.
Yeah, I got nothing on this one. Either the prosecutor failed miserably to charge with an appropriate crime, or the grand jury was just ridiculously off base. If I were putting money on it, I'd go with the former.
Inept prosecution seems probable, or perhaps a really well-argued defense against the specific charges.
Or corrupt DA. Honestly seems more likely.
I suppose juror bias is also a distinct possibility. If it's a pro-cop area, they'll probably be less likely to indict. Gods know I saw plenty of juror bias in my brief stint in a grand jury. Had a special victims case where three grandmothers had made up their minds before hearing any testimony at all.
Inept prosecution seems probable, or perhaps a really well-argued defense against the specific charges.
Or corrupt DA. Honestly seems more likely.
So, a friend of ours says she is pretty sure she remembers a quote of the DA trying to recuse himself from the case and not getting allowed to. I'll follow up with a source if I get one.
Inept prosecution seems probable, or perhaps a really well-argued defense against the specific charges.
Thing is, isn't the defense not allowed to speak in the grand jury setting? If there was a well-argued defense involved, wouldn't it need to come from the prosecutor themself?
Inept prosecution seems probable, or perhaps a really well-argued defense against the specific charges.
Thing is, isn't the defense not allowed to speak in the grand jury setting? If there was a well-argued defense involved, wouldn't it need to come from the prosecutor themself?
They can't present and cross examine witnesses. They can still present a case.
Comments
This isn't the country I signed up for at birth.
A)requires police to wear cameras
B)Develop more Non-lethal options
C)Enhances police training and equipment
D)Creates a citizen board who can arbitrate legal action against police.
Edit: I also love how that article is concerned about property damage from riots and injuries to police officers and not at all about injuries to protestors from rubber bullets and tear gas, or, y'know, that a kid got shot to death.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/nyregion/grand-jury-said-to-bring-no-charges-in-staten-island-chokehold-death-of-eric-garner.html
Also: L.A.P.D. by The Offspring (1992)
plus
St. Louis PD claiming the Rams organization apologized: http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/12/1/7318029/rams-apologize-police-players-hands-up-gesture-ferguson-michael-brown
equals:
easy pickings for Jon Stewart and The Daily Show:
http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2014/12/3/7325979/jon-stewart-rams-st-louis-police-apology-video-fake-tweets
The violent revolution shortcut doesn't even work anymore since the cops were militarized. Yeah, they didn't just do it for no reason. Of course, it was mostly to line the pockets of defense contractors.
We should have special investigators brought in for every case of police misconduct to avoid even the appearance that DAs are going to throw the case for the sake of police relations.
It probably wouldn't solve the root cause of police tensions but I wish police unions were illegal. The amount of disgusting moral behavior they defend makes me furious.
Or corrupt DA. Honestly seems more likely.
I suppose juror bias is also a distinct possibility. If it's a pro-cop area, they'll probably be less likely to indict. Gods know I saw plenty of juror bias in my brief stint in a grand jury. Had a special victims case where three grandmothers had made up their minds before hearing any testimony at all.