Make chewing gum in public illegal, have someone resist the police over it, and you'll have people dead as a result. I suspect the internet age is making us face how we go about things and we don't like what it looks like.

We've had some change in regards to drug policy, finally starting to dawn on society that filling our prisons with people for mere use benefits no one.

The police are on the front lines everyday dealing with the mentally ill people we make live on the streets. The police are the wrong tool for that job, but we make them do it anyways. It doesn't look too pretty when watching the police chase around mentally ill people all day that are trying to keep from freezing.

Going back to MJ, there's no reason whatsoever to have a market for it legal or illegal. It's called weed for a reason, it's take no effort to grow. Other than a dollar to buy a packet of seeds to get started there's no reason for any of the nonsense that follows other than human absurdity.

But again task the police with chasing people around all day over MJ and they will do it with a vengeance and things will go wrong and people will die or waste away in prison. Treat tobacco like rhubarb and let people do what they want with it. These are nonsense problems we bring on ourselves as a society by being stupidly overly concerned with what people do with their personal lives.

neal

Make chewing gum in public illegal, have someone resist the police over it, and you'll have people dead as a result.

Although you are right that many drug laws are pointless. Marijuana can easily be legalized and regulated and all those arrests for MJ possession will end.
But you cannot point at laws and say that they are the cause of problems with the enforcement of the law.
If the law makes sense, then it makes sense that it be enforced. The police are tasked with that but not equipped properly.
For all the training improvements there still seems to be a resort to the use of violence, when there are other strategies that can work without creating a risky situation. This is especially true in the treatment of mentally ill people that they meet on the street...
And though you say police are the "wrong tool for the job" then who is right? And maybe its because the role of people as "enforcer" of laws has taken predominance over their role "to serve and protect".

commentary from a former police officer...

Unfortunately, I don’t think better training alone will reduce police brutality. My fellow officers and I took plenty of classes on racial sensitivity and on limiting the use of force.
The problem is that cops aren’t held accountable for their actions, and they know it. These officers violate rights with impunity. They know there’s a different criminal justice system for civilians and police.
Even when officers get caught, they know they’ll be investigated by their friends, and put on paid leave. My colleagues would laughingly refer to this as a free vacation. It isn’t a punishment. And excessive force is almost always deemed acceptable in our courts and among our grand juries. Prosecutors are tight with law enforcement, and share the same values and ideas.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/postevery ... x/?hpid=z4

danivon wrote:Also, I'm not clear about what Grand Juries are all about. Are they necessary?

A Grand Jury is an investigative body that is used to determine whether or not there is enough evidence against an individual to warrant criminal charges. The prosecutor is only required to show evidence of the targeted person's guilty. If the Grand Jury finds there is probable cause that the evidence is sufficient that the accused will be found guilty based on the evidence presented, they can return an indictment.

The prosecutor is not required to provide any exculpatory evidence. Because the jury only hears evidence of guilt, it often returns a true bill (an indictment) hence the saying that a Prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted.

The answer on whether they are necessary is that is it depends. A grand jury is required on the Federal level for any capital crimes by the 5th Amendment.

Some state constitutions have a similar requirement such as New York. However, other states allow the Prosecutor to bring an indictment without a Grand Jury.

I saw something about the history of Grand Juries
They evolved in English law from the idea of getting a load of local people together to help the authorities decide whether to prosecute (and this back in the day before jury trials and when judges were not really open to the kind of defence arguments and practice we now accept as standard.

But since the USA left the Empire we and the other colonies abandoned the Grand Jury.

It occurs to me that if a GJ is just a pliable tool of a DA, and rarely throws out cases, it is not doing much that a trial jury would itself not already do (and a trial judge can dismiss a case for lack of evidence) and a great deal less - as they also get to see the defence case.

Also, if a DA does not want to get a charge, they can easily 'throw' the GJ process by presenting contradictory evidence or even acting as a defence advocate. When DAs are close to the police, I can see that they would be under pressure to not push cases against cops too hard.

Of course, we are not perfect over here - precious few prosecutions are raised, let alone that lead to convictions - where a civilian has died at the hands of police in suspicious circumstances.

Archduke Russell John wrote:I will be interested to see the backlash from the police over the way the situation is being handled by politicians and the public. I just read an article that the NYPD union leadership is already talking about no longer trying to arrest people for non-violent crimes.

I think De Blasio is going to seriously regret throwing the NYPD under the bus.

The police work for the City, and he's the mayor, and ultimately their boss. Imagine any work environment where the boss says that his is unhappy with the way his workers are doing their job, and the response is, "Well, the boss is going to regret criticizing his workers, because now they're going to do a really crappy job." That's wacked, man!

Unfortunately, because of the strength of the police union, there is essentially no accountability and the police can tell their boss to f*ck off and no one gets fired. It's crazy that citizens tolerate it.

If there isn't a grand jury then there will be a preliminary hearing. Both proceedings require that probable cause be shown. But grand jury proceedings are secret and they have only the grand jury and a prosecutor; in a preliminary hearing the prosecutor presents the witnesses and evidence to show probable cause for the crime and defendant's attorney gets to cross-examine. And a judge makes a determination as to whether probable cause is shown. So the advantages are (1) secrecy, (2) the defense doesn't get 2 bites of the apple, by getting to cross-examine prosecution witnesses at the preliminary hearing and trial, and (3) a judge is probably more likely to throw out a weak case.
In these cop abuse cases where the prosecutor may not be trying very hard to get a conviction secrecy is the most important thing. Transcripts don't show the attitude and tone by which the prosecutor is presenting these cases. The most serious defect with the grand jury is the secrecy; the public has a right to know whether the prosecutor is vigorously prosecuting the case.

freeman3 wrote:But grand jury proceedings are secret and they have only the grand jury and a prosecutor

Do you know who sits on grand juries? In Manhattan every citizen I know has been called to jury duty many times, but I don't know anyone who has ever sat on a grand jury. Are they just filled from the regular jury pool, or are the filled with jurors with special qualifications?

They are done differently. But each county has it's own way of doing it (at least in California ). In Los Angeles it's random and in Orange County grand jurors apply for it. http://grandjury.co.la.ca.us
http://www.ocgrandjury.org/geninfo.asp
http://www.ocgrandjury.org/new.asp

geojanes wrote:The police work for the City, and he's the mayor, and ultimately their boss. Imagine any work environment where the boss says that his is unhappy with the way his workers are doing their job, and the response is, "Well, the boss is going to regret criticizing his workers, because now they're going to do a really crappy job." That's wacked, man!

Yeah I can imagine it easily. When police do it, its called the blue flu. When Teachers do it, its called Work to Contract. When production employees do it, its call a work slow down.

Another problem of the preliminary hearing over a grand jury is that it can slow down the criminal hearing process. We have that problem here in Philadelphia. It can take years for a preliminary hearing to happen because it turns into a mini-trail which requires the scheduling of witnesses, two attorneys, a judge, any police involved. expert witnesses etc. There was a problem here about preliminary hearings being rescheduled multiple times because one of those people could not make it. What is supposed to take less than 365 days (complaint filed to jury trial start) under the state's speed trial law, was taking 5-6 years all told.

geojanes wrote:Stewart's take:

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/a9bg2k/the-eric-garner-grand-jury-decision

Which frankly is a little lame because they didn't have time to develop a show for it, but it should be discussed.

And, of course, Stewart is an idiot. He doesn't know what he's talking about. One of the "shooting victims" he lists in another show was not shot at all.

He says Garner was not violent. That's true, but he did say he was not going to be arrested. He was in violation of the law and definitively resisted arrest. "Don't touch me" is not in keeping with going peacefully.

Now, should the officers have done what they did? I don't think so.

I've been in similar situations. THIS approach works 95% of the time:

"Hey man, I'm just doing my job. Think I care about these cigarettes? Nope. And, I 100% understand why you're out here--you've got a family to feed and I respect that. I don't want to disrespect you at all. But, I do have a problem: these stores called, they're complaining, and so I've got to take you in.

"I don't want to disrespect you at all. I want you to get you in, get you processed and get you out so you can get back to taking care of business, but I'm going to need you to show me the same respect I'm showing you--can you do that for me, please? Man to man--I'm asking for a favor."

It's painful for me to watch the officer grab Garner around the neck. Now, it is technically NOT a "choke hold." Why not? Because it avoids the Adam's apple--it's a "carotid restraint." However, instead of going high and getting into a wrestling match, they should have gone low--IF (and I'm dubious) force had to be used.

They did what they did. I don't think it was borne of race--the on-scene supervisor was Black. I think it was just a bad tactical move following resistance from Mr. Garner.

rickyp wrote:Although you are right that many drug laws are pointless. Marijuana can easily be legalized and regulated and all those arrests for MJ possession will end.

Wrong. Cigarettes are legal. Garner was killed as a result of avoiding taxes--that's what the State demands. So, eventually, there will be draconian taxes on marijuana. It's inevitable. Those taxes will lead to smuggling, which will lead to "loosies," which will lead to confrontations between cops and "loosie dealers."

geojanes wrote:

Archduke Russell John wrote:I will be interested to see the backlash from the police over the way the situation is being handled by politicians and the public. I just read an article that the NYPD union leadership is already talking about no longer trying to arrest people for non-violent crimes.

I think De Blasio is going to seriously regret throwing the NYPD under the bus.

The police work for the City, and he's the mayor, and ultimately their boss. Imagine any work environment where the boss says that his is unhappy with the way his workers are doing their job, and the response is, "Well, the boss is going to regret criticizing his workers, because now they're going to do a really crappy job." That's wacked, man!

Unfortunately, because of the strength of the police union, there is essentially no accountability and the police can tell their boss to f*ck off and no one gets fired. It's crazy that citizens tolerate it.

Hey, that's your mayor--and he's a union guy! Unions ftw!

The PD will retaliate--and so would anyone in the same situation. It's his laws they are enforcing. Note well: the one thing DiBlasio has not suggested would help is getting rid of taxation that is absolutely insane--highest in the country. He's very upset about the result, but not about the circumstances. Arresting someone for selling cigarettes?

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:Although you are right that many drug laws are pointless. Marijuana can easily be legalized and regulated and all those arrests for MJ possession will end.

Wrong. Cigarettes are legal. Garner was killed as a result of avoiding taxes--that's what the State demands.

"evading", but yes. Of course, it's still not a capital offence to avoid cigarette taxes.

So, eventually, there will be draconian taxes on marijuana. It's inevitable. Those taxes will lead to smuggling, which will lead to "loosies," which will lead to confrontations between cops and "loosie dealers."

Only if imports are significantly cheaper. Given that current laws on marijuana already lead to confrontations between cops and dealers (as well as customers), it may be an improvement on the status quo to just have street sellers getting arrested rather than a large part of the War on Drugs seeing marijuana users and small-time dealers locked in prison.

Doctor Fate wrote:Hey, that's your mayor--and he's a union guy! Unions ftw!

The PD will retaliate--and so would anyone in the same situation. It's his laws they are enforcing. Note well: the one thing DiBlasio has not suggested would help is getting rid of taxation that is absolutely insane--highest in the country. He's very upset about the result, but not about the circumstances. Arresting someone for selling cigarettes?

They may have been enforcing one law, but the means of doing so appears to have broken another. When the cops break the law, it needs to be dealt with, because if they get the idea that they are above such things, then it can only lead to corruption of the force.

And if their boss isn't going to take a stand, then who?