freeman3 wrote:Again, it was up to the prosecutor to decide if those cases should be brought, but once brought the cases should be properly prosecuted. If they did not want to make determination (for fear of either harming their working relationship with local police or taking the heat from the community) then they should have brought in their state attorney general to handle the case.

Don't you think in Ferguson the DA did everything he could to appear impartial?

In NYC, how can we know, given that the evidence has not been released?

Do you believe it is better to simply charge officers, whether or not the evidence warrants it, so that the public will be able to examine things for itself? If so, who wants to be a cop? If you have to make life or death decisions, whether you are right or wrong, you face a "fine" of hundreds of thousands of dollars because that is what it will cost to defend yourself against charges like these.

fate

Do you believe it is better to simply charge officers, whether or not the evidence warrants it, so that the public will be able to examine things for itself?

No.
But it would be better if, when police are involved, the local DA didn't conduct a GJ.
A preliminary hearing, open to the press, using a non-local legal entity would make sense.Perhaps a state prosecutor working with a special investigation unit?

It would help if standardized procedures were followed after any shooting. The officer in Ferguson didn't file a report, and was not officially interviewed for very long time.

This is a system i am familiar with Fate .... Are you aware of similar procedures in different states?

http://www.siu.on.ca/en/faq.php?print=y

a small force like Ferguson could not run such. But perhaps Missouri could?

rickyp wrote:fate

Because the evidence proves something to the contrary?

because he was willing to introduce testimony from a wholly unreliable witness.
BTW the only eye witness testimony that corroborated the officers testimony entirely.
(Or so we're told. Because the proceedings have not been completely revealed.)

Okay, so who corroborated the "hands up" story? Whose testimony was consistent with the physical evidence and contradicted the officer's?

fate

If he only wanted to protect himself, he could have recused himself. He could have not released the evidence. Instead, he went over and above to be transparent. He was in a no-win situation

No win?
What does that mean?

The presumption of some, before the trial, was that he would not be fair. After all, his father, a police officer, was killed by a black man. Therefore, he would take the officer's side against a black man--or so the thinking went.

Now, if he recused himself, he would be accused of not doing his job or, at best, of implicitly affirming the accusations against him. The governor declined to appoint a special prosecutor. So, whatever the DA did, someone would be bugged.

Are you saying that if the GJ had been used as it normally was, and proceeding had lead to charges he would lose? Why?

No.

Given the mess of the evidence, how could anyone think a conviction against the officer was probable? DA's rarely file "snowball chance" cases.

rickyp wrote:fate

Do you believe it is better to simply charge officers, whether or not the evidence warrants it, so that the public will be able to examine things for itself?

No.
But it would be better if, when police are involved, the local DA didn't conduct a GJ.
A preliminary hearing, open to the press, using a non-local legal entity would make sense.Perhaps a state prosecutor working with a special investigation unit?

Me, personally? I don't care.

I do think that a judge doing his/her job would not have held this over for trial. However, a judge is subject to political pressure. That is why a GJ exists. If you think a DA is subject to it, well, it's more for a judge.

It would help if standardized procedures were followed after any shooting. The officer in Ferguson didn't file a report, and was not officially interviewed for very long time.

"Very long time?"

Weeks? Months? Days? Or hours?

He didn't file a report because the shooter does not. I should know. I have written "officer-involved" shooting reports, have you?

a small force like Ferguson could not run such. But perhaps Missouri could?

I see no need in this case. The suspect attacked the officer. There is virtually no evidence the officer did anything but defend himself. Why this case should do anything other than remind people to not attack police officers is beyond me. That "kid" was a thug. Look up the heinous video of him beating someone more than twice his age.

Well, we don 't have transcripts from the New York case but we do know the officer testified. I grant you that the DA is in a no-win situation here. If they decline the case because they don't think the officer committed a crime they will be vilified as well. But it is their role to make that determination; if they think there is no case then they should say so and decline to bring the case. Probably the best thing is do have a state agency handle it to take the heat. But you can't go to a grand jury and allow an officer, probably extensively prepared by an attorney and perhaps with a lot of experience testifying, give his explanation of what happened without cross-examination. And allow other adverse witnesses (in Ferguson), again not being cross- examined, give testimony adverse to the case. A grand jury is not an appropriate vehicle to filter out cases.

And I agree that we should not be bringing criminal cases against police officers if they make arguably negligent decisions in life-or-death situations. Well , Of course the law already mandates that they not get charged for mere negligence, but we would still be careful not to charge police officers for decisions that are really just negligent split-second decisions. The issue in Ferguson was whether the officer shot a suspect when he no longer appeared to be a threat and an issue in New York was whether the police officers were recklessly indifferent to the plight of Eric Garner when he said he could not breathe. If proven , I think that is conduct that goes beyond negligence. But of course it needs to be proven.

freeman3 wrote:The issue in Ferguson was whether the officer shot a suspect when he no longer appeared to be a threat . . .

I agree on what the issue was. Ideally, I think the governor would have appointed a special prosecutor. Why? Because it is the only way the "DA" issue could have been dealt with to keep the mob happy. Ultimately, they were not going to be satisfied without a guilty verdict on the officer, which was always highly unlikely given the physical evidence. For some, the evidence did not matter.

Let me be clear (to quote the President): justice is not served by a mob-driven outcome.

. . . and an issue in New York was whether the police officers were recklessly indifferent to the plight of Eric Garner when he said he could not breathe. If proven , I think that is conduct that goes beyond negligence. But of course it needs to be proven.

The only problem I have with the "Garner was a victim" thesis is that if someone is trying, really trying, to choke you out, you will NEVER be able to say "I can't breathe" eleven times. There's just not enough oxygen in anyone's lungs for that.

I would really hope the discussion will eventually get to the issue of taxation and police enforcement of it. I think this case was wrong even before he died. Why were cops summoned? Should it be arrestable? Those are matters for NYC's elected leaders.

fate

Given the mess of the evidence, how could anyone think a conviction against the officer was probable?

You've seen all the evidence and the way it was presented?
Does that include the testimony of witness 40, which was apparently completely false...
And which was the only testimony that matched the officers....

The GJ procedure isn't supposed to prove innocence or guilt. Its supposed to show that there is sufficient evidence to take a case to trial. This prosecutor misused the process by laying out contradictory evidence. And its apparent now that he brought in evidence that he must have known, or should have known, was unreliable.

fate

If you think a DA is subject to it, well, it's more for a judge.

Everyone but you seem to think this DA was subject to pressure. Political, or collegial pressure.. But pressure.

fate

"Very long time?"

R

Records show that the Ferguson police did not file an incident report until August 19, 10 days after the shooting, and approved its release the following day.[68] Attempts to obtain the incident report in the aftermath of the shooting, included the National Bar Association and the ACLU. When the National Bar Association filed their suit on August 13 to obtain the incident report, a response by the city clerk stated that records may be unavailable or not held by the city.[69][68] The report was filed and subsequently released after growing criticism and media reports following the release of an 18-page incident report of the store robbery, but not the shooting.[70] On August 21, an NBC News article reported that according to county prosecutors, local Ferguson police did not file an incident report because the case was almost immediately turned over to the St. Louis County Police and reported a statement by McCulloch's office that the incident report did not exist.[71] Immediately following the release of the Ferguson incident report, Time commented that the lack of details in the report would likely increase the already widespread criticism that the police were protecting Wilson. The report classified the potential offense as a "homicide". Schellman said that is the standard classification for an investigation into an incident that leaves someone dead.[68]

On September 25, Yahoo News reported that a use-of-force report was non-existent, and commented that such a report is required by Ferguson Police Department protocol whenever any force – lethal, or non-lethal – is used, in violation of the department's reporting standards, and against recommended standards of state and national police credentialing groups.[72]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown



Strikes me that the latitude given to police in filing reports after shootings or other incidents contributes to the general lack of accountability that makes some cops act as if they are the law....
and not the servants of the people in enforcing their laws...

rickyp wrote:The GJ procedure isn't supposed to prove innocence or guilt. Its supposed to show that there is sufficient evidence to take a case to trial. This prosecutor misused the process by laying out contradictory evidence. And its apparent now that he brought in evidence that he must have known, or should have known, was unreliable.

So you have said, a dozen times or so.

So, here's the challenge for you: go through the evidence. Find reliable evidence that would lead you to believe it was reasonable to believe the officer had committed a crime. As you know more than the DA, this should not be difficult for you.

I'll wait.

fate

If you think a DA is subject to it, well, it's more for a judge.

Everyone but you seem to think this DA was subject to pressure. Political, or collegial pressure.. But pressure.

I didn't say that. I said a judge is hardly immune from pressure. Only a special prosecutor (theoretically) would be. However, they brought one in for the Trayvon Martin case. How did that go? An indictment and "not guilty."

There is no easy answer here.

The DA tried to mollify everyone by releasing the evidence. However, nothing was going to make the mob happy short of a lynching.

Strikes me that the latitude given to police in filing reports after shootings or other incidents contributes to the general lack of accountability that makes some cops act as if they are the law....
and not the servants of the people in enforcing their laws...

Opinion. You're welcome to it.

rickyp wrote:fate

Do you believe it is better to simply charge officers, whether or not the evidence warrants it, so that the public will be able to examine things for itself?

No.
But it would be better if, when police are involved, the local DA didn't conduct a GJ.
A preliminary hearing, open to the press, using a non-local legal entity would make sense.Perhaps a state prosecutor working with a special investigation unit?

You are advocating an unequal treatment under the law. An officer should go through the same process as any other citizen.

Is that your intention? Unequal treatment?

On the one hand , we don't want police officers getting preferential treatment, as a local DA might be prone to do. On the other hand, we can't have any sector of the community dictating a certain result . Hopefully, by having a state agency step in that might restore some faith that there will be impartiality in the process. But it is certainly not a cure-all in these high-profile cases. At least in the Trayvon Martin case the process was open, the case was prosecuted, and the jury spoke. Trying to take the politics out of these cases is...impossible.

freeman3 wrote:On the one hand , we don't want police officers getting preferential treatment, as a local DA might be prone to do. On the other hand, we can't have any sector of the community dictating a certain result . Hopefully, by having a state agency step in that might restore some faith that there will be impartiality in the process. But it is certainly not a cure-all in these high-profile cases. At least in the Trayvon Martin case the process was open, the case was prosecuted, and the jury spoke. Trying to take the politics out of these cases is...impossible.

True.

Where we would differ: I don't think Holder or President Obama have helped. Holder still hasn't closed the Martin case, if I recall correctly. He announced there would be a Federal investigation after the verdict was announced. The odds of convicting a half-Black civilian for a civil rights violation seemed remote, at best. But, it's never enough for Holder to just be candid. He is a "civil rights warrior" in his mind. He has said the same thing re the Ferguson case.

Now, the President: sorry, but having the kerosene-toting, hate-mongering, documented liar, Al Sharpton as an adviser on race relations boggles the mind. It's like asking David Duke for civil rights advice. Sharpton has a long and non-distinguished career in fomenting racial problems, but he's been to the White House more than once a month (in excess of 80 visits).

And, who is it that takes his shell of a TV show, and all kinds of trouble, with him to the streets? Al Sharpton. So, on one hand, he's an adviser to the President and, on the other hand, he's creating scenes that the President decries. Sharpton makes Jesse Jackson look like a responsible leader--and that takes some work. So, why embrace that guy? Why not Tavis Smiley? Why not any number of mostly-honest leaders of the community?

Exactly, Freeman. There is bias and politics in everything. Giving one portion of society an intentionally more difficult time is, to me, problematic.

bbauska

You are advocating an unequal treatment under the law. An officer should go through the same process as any other citizen.
Is that your intention? Unequal treatment?

A police officer is charged with enforcing laws, and given special powers under law to do so. When they are involved in use of force that causes injury or death they are not like any other citizen.
Treating them in a similar manner when they have greater powers and greater responsibilities is inappropriate.
Treating them as privileged, as seems to have been the case in cases where DA's have employed unique strategies in grand juries, is unequal treatment.

Special Investigative Units dealing with police involved in shootings and other incidents is necessary to ensure that the incident is investigated and sent through the legal process with assurances of neutrality that produces confidence in the system. Including confidence in the police force.
When the public (or as Fate refers to the public, The Mob) loses confidence that police are treated without privileges then they lose confidence in the police as a whole.

Another way to look at it Bbauska.. when an ordinary citizen is charged he doesn't get to have people he regularly does business with and associates with, handle the investigation and potential prosecution. Neither should a police officer.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

You are advocating an unequal treatment under the law. An officer should go through the same process as any other citizen.
Is that your intention? Unequal treatment?

A police officer is charged with enforcing laws, and given special powers under law to do so. When they are involved in use of force that causes injury or death they are not like any other citizen.
Treating them in a similar manner when they have greater powers and greater responsibilities is inappropriate.
Treating them as privileged, as seems to have been the case in cases where DA's have employed unique strategies in grand juries, is unequal treatment.

Special Investigative Units dealing with police involved in shootings and other incidents is necessary to ensure that the incident is investigated and sent through the legal process with assurances of neutrality that produces confidence in the system. Including confidence in the police force.
When the public (or as Fate refers to the public, The Mob) loses confidence that police are treated without privileges then they lose confidence in the police as a whole.

Another way to look at it Bbauska.. when an ordinary citizen is charged he doesn't get to have people he regularly does business with and associates with, handle the investigation and potential prosecution. Neither should a police officer.

Was that a yes, or a no? Do you support the mechanics of a trial/grand jury to be different for citizens and police?

If yes, are you aware that that is unequal treatment under the law?

I pictured you more as a equality guy...

rickyp wrote:A police officer is charged with enforcing laws, and given special powers under law to do so.

That's not really quite true. The biggest difference? Police officers can make arrests for felonies not occurring in their presence. Citizens can make arrests, just like police officers. Citizens can use reasonable force to overcome force used against them, just like police officers.

Yes, police officers have police cars and civilians don't. But, the gap is not as wide as you make it out to be.

Furthermore, and to the heart of your argument, police officers do NOT waive any Constitutional rights when they become officers. They don't have to waive the Fifth, etc.

(*Irony alert: liberals complain about a "police state" (as do libertarians), but they are the ones who want to disarm the populace, which increases the power of the police and the State over the people.*)

When they are involved in use of force that causes injury or death they are not like any other citizen.

Please elaborate. As stated, you are 100% wrong.

Treating them in a similar manner when they have greater powers and greater responsibilities is inappropriate.

Wrong and wrong. And, as Bbbauska asked, what about the Constitution?

Treating them as privileged, as seems to have been the case in cases where DA's have employed unique strategies in grand juries, is unequal treatment.

"Seems" is the operative word.

I think if we were to see all of the evidence, I don't think we'd find much inclination toward "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Nothing screams "unequal treatment" more than "we should try the cops, period. After all, if they're not guilty, what have they got to lose?"

Special Investigative Units dealing with police involved in shootings and other incidents is necessary to ensure that the incident is investigated and sent through the legal process with assurances of neutrality that produces confidence in the system. Including confidence in the police force.

If you don't think this happens already, you're not well-informed.

When the public (or as Fate refers to the public, The Mob) loses confidence that police are treated without privileges then they lose confidence in the police as a whole.

No, "the mob" are the ones out there screaming, "What do we want? Dead Cops! When do we want it? Now!" Yes, that happened at a demonstration.

They're also looting and burning buildings and threatening police officers--and assaulting them in NYC (as happened a couple of days ago). So, yeah, there is a "mob mentality" out there.

Another way to look at it Bbauska.. when an ordinary citizen is charged he doesn't get to have people he regularly does business with and associates with, handle the investigation and potential prosecution. Neither should a police officer.

To be candid, you have no idea what you are talking about. Really. You make it sound like an officer goes out and drinks with the IA guys who then bury the evidence of bad shootings, etc. You don't know anything.