It's official: Police Officers can murder anyone without any reprocussions

[Kinthalis]

Before, all they had to say (after they unloaded several clips into you) was that you went, menacingly for your cell phone. And no charges would ever be levied against police.

Now, apparently, all they have to say is that you "gestured" menancingly, and therefore unloading on you was perfectly justified: http://gothamist.com/2008/07/11/cop_cleared_in_fatal_road_rage_inci.php

Nevermind that after murdering the guy, this police officer ran and hid for 19 hours before coming clean, apparently, this should not be taken as suspicious, no, not at all, he IS a police officer after all, and therefore can do no wrong!

Hmm, kill a civilian in road rage incident, run and hide for 19 hours. Realize that there might be evidence which ties the crime back, and then come up with the unnassailable defense of "He gestured menancingly at me!"

Fuck you you sack of shit murdering cop. And fuck all the others as well who have evaded their just comeuppance by either lying or trying to hide their incompetence and bad judgement by claiming the victim "Gestured or drew his cell phone, or stared menacingly! Won't you think of us poor cops, we do a terrible job you know!"

And fuck the political leaders that allow them to get away with it too.

[Bearflag70]

One of my ex-girlfriends was a bank teller. Some older guy presented her a check. For whatever reason, the bank wanted to ensure the funds were good on the check before processing it. This either delayed the guy or his access to the funds, I can't remember.

The guy protested angrily, "The person who wrote that check is a cop!"

Pardon me, Mr. Dumbass, but cops can bounce checks just like everyone else. :rolleyes:

Also, the bank has no evidence that the guy who wrote the check is anything other than a person writing a check, not that it matters. I suppose the bank should just take your word for it because nobody ever lies to the bank. :rolleyes:

[Joe Mama]

Unfortunately it takes a criminal to think like a criminal to catch a criminal.

Im not saying that all cops are POSs but I have met more that I didnt like than I do.
Take that for what its worth.
-Me

[Gfactor]

And fuck the political leaders that allow them to get away with it too.

Fine rant. But I question this last line. Here is why:

A grand jury Thursday refused to bring charges against an off-duty cop who shot a motorist last year in a Manhattan road-rage beef and then fled the scene of the killing. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/07/10/2008-07-10_cop_who_fled_after_roadrage_killing_wont.html

Grand jurors aren't political leaders, they're citizens: http://www.nyjuror.gov/general-information/hbGrandJuror42007.pdf

Also, at least he'll probably lose his job:

Police sources said Sawyer is almost certain to lose his job. "You can't fire your gun and disappear for 19 hours. Even if he didn't hit anyone, he would be in trouble. In this case, he killed someone and ran," a source said. Id.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Fine rant. But I question this last line. Here is why:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/07/10/2008-07-10_cop_who_fled_after_roadrage_killing_wont.html

Grand jurors aren't political leaders, they're citizens: http://www.nyjuror.gov/general-information/hbGrandJuror42007.pdf

Also, at least he'll probably lose his job:

Id.
Bringing it to a grand jury shows a cowardly prosecutor, at least. Grand juries in cases like this are a tactic to allow prosecutors to wash their hands of cases they don't want to prosecute. It was the same in the Horn case in Texas.

[Clothahump]

It's official: Police Officers can murder anyone without any reprocussions


Not so much.

Charges were brought before a grand jury. They no-billed the officer. That means that a group of citizens - his peers- found that there wasn't any reason to try him in court. That is, by no means, an official statement that cops can get away with murder, and on a board supposed dedicated to fighting ignorance, I'm surprised you made a statement like that.

And he's going to be fired. I wouldn't call that no repercussions by any stretch of the imagination.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Not so much.

Charges were brought before a grand jury. They no-billed the officer. That means that a group of citizens - his peers- found that there wasn't any reason to try him in court. That is, by no means, an official statement that cops can get away with murder, and on a board supposed dedicated to fighting ignorance, I'm surprised you made a statement like that.

And he's going to be fired. I wouldn't call that no repercussions by any stretch of the imagination.
But the Grand Jury didn't have to be brought in at all. The prosecutor could have brought charges on his own. The Grand Jury was brought in just to give the prosecutor cover for not bringing charges.

[Clothahump]

Bringing it to a grand jury shows a cowardly prosecutor, at least. Grand juries in cases like this are a tactic to allow prosecutors to wash their hands of cases they don't want to prosecute. It was the same in the Horn case in Texas.
Quite the opposite, Diogenes, quite the opposite.


A grand jury is meant to be part of the system of checks and balances, preventing a case from going to trial on a prosecutor's bare word. A prosecutor must convince the grand jury, as an impartial panel of ordinary citizens that there exists reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or a prima facie case that a crime has been committed. The grand jury can compel witnesses to testify before them. Unlike the trial itself, the grand jury's proceedings are secret; the defendant and his or her counsel are generally not present for other witnesses' testimony. The grand jury's decision is either a "true bill" (meaning that there is a case to answer) or "no true bill". Jurors typically are drawn from the same pool of citizens as a petit jury, and participate for a specific time period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury

Had the grand jury not been there, Horn would have been railroaded into court by special interest groups manipulating the DA's office. You want to bitch about "cowardly prosecutors", bitch about that. The DA should have the balls to tell the special interest groups to fuck off. How many of them do?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Once more: Grand juries in cases like this are used to provide political cover and give prosecutors an excuse not to have to prosecute unpopular cases.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

But the Grand Jury didn't have to be brought in at all. The prosecutor could have brought charges on his own. The Grand Jury was brought in just to give the prosecutor cover for not bringing charges.


Where do you live that this happens?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Had the grand jury not been there, Horn would have been railroaded into court by special interest groups manipulating the DA's office. You want to bitch about "cowardly prosecutors", bitch about that. The DA should have the balls to tell the special interest groups to fuck off. How many of them do?
Special interest groups manipulating the DA's office? Cite?

If the DA can be manipulated by special interest groups (and the Horn case was in Texas, remember. The public sentiment was quite WITH Horn) then he ahs no business being in the job.

[tomndebb]

But the Grand Jury didn't have to be brought in at all. The prosecutor could have brought charges on his own. The Grand Jury was brought in just to give the prosecutor cover for not bringing charges.You're sure that in the state of New York a felony prosecution does not require a grand jury?

There might be any number of reasons to excoriate the prosecutor, (was the GJ only given the option of first degree murder when the victim's comment about having a Ruger might have justified a charge on second degree, for example)--again, I do not know the specifics of New York protocol--but I am not sure that you have leaped to a correct conclusion regarding the prosecutor's actions.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Where do you live that this happens?
America.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

If the DA can be manipulated by "special interest groups (and the Horn case was in Texas, remember. The public sentiment was quite WITH Horn) then he ahs no business being in the job.

And if the DA can prosecute whatever he wants for whatever reason he wants, then we're not dealing with a free system.


A grand jury has powers the likes of which a regular jury does not.

A grand jury can indict based on "evidence" that would never see the light of day in trial. A grand jury is essentially a vehicle for an indictment.

It's stunning news when a grand jury DOESN'T indict someone.

If the DA couldn't get it past a grand jury, he's got no prayer at getting it past an actual jury.

The limited resources of the judicial system are better spent on cases where justice CAN be served.


You are flat-out wrong on this one. It's not been a good week for you.

[clairobscur]

Bringing it to a grand jury shows a cowardly prosecutor, at least. Grand juries in cases like this are a tactic to allow prosecutors to wash their hands of cases they don't want to prosecute. It was the same in the Horn case in Texas.


Reading that, I understand that I was completely mistaken about grand juries. I had assumed until now that in the US, bringing a to a grand jury was a mandatory step, required before an actual trial could take place. If it's not the case, what purpose does a grand jury serve, then?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

And if the DA can prosecute whatever he wants for whatever reason he wants, then we're not dealing with a free system.


A grand jury has powers the likes of which a regular jury does not.

A grand jury can indict based on "evidence" that would never see the light of day in trial. A grand jury is essentially a vehicle for an indictment.

It's stunning news when a grand jury DOESN'T indict someone.

If the DA couldn't get it past a grand jury, he's got no prayer at getting it past an actual jury.

The limited resources of the judicial system are better spent on cases where justice CAN be served.


You are flat-out wrong on this one. It's not been a good week for you.
I don't think you're very informed about this. Wait until the lawyers chime in.

[clairobscur]

Quite the opposite, Diogenes, quite the opposite.



Well... What you posted is what I used to believe. But then, why isn't it mandatory? And if it's not, why would a prosecutor bother with presenting a case to a grand jury?

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

I don't think you're very informed about this. Wait until the lawyers chime in.

Of course you don't think so.

You're mistaken yet again.

[tomndebb]

This letter/web page (http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/recent/hnygjw.htm) is a couple of years old, so New York may have since joined the 2/3 of the states that no longer require grand juries, but as of 2003, they still had them and their use was required for any trial for which the defendant did not agree in advance to waive them.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I might be wrong on the NY case, but not on the Texas case.

[elucidator]

I don't think you're very informed about this. Wait until the lawyers chime in.
A dire prophecy.

Problem is, to oversimplify, the role of cop attracts the very best and the very worst. It calls to people who genuinely want nothing more but "to protect and to serve". It also calls to guys who want to wear a gun and push people around. I don't know how this can be avoided, but I would suggest making the job as well-paid and well-respected as we can manage and thoroughly screen the candidates. Training should include as much cultural understanding of the various groups s/he will be called upon to deal with as we can manage.

We should have recording of as many interchanges with the public as can be managed, with older more experienced cops critiquing the rookies. And letting the "bad apples" know they won't get away with shit.

I'm sorry to say that most cops I've met fell into the second category, but I've met a few that fell into the first, and they give me hope, they show what is possible. But so few, alas, so few.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

A grand jury has powers that a regular jury does not. (§ 190.05 Grand jury; definition and general functions.)


A gr4and jury can indict based on "evidence" that would never see the light of day in a trial. (http://law.onecle.com/new-york/criminal-procedure/CPL0190.30_190.30.html)

It's stunning news when a grand jury DOESN'T indict someone. (http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/indict_a_ham_sandwich/)


What did I leave out, pray tell?


Maybe YOU should wait until the INFORMED bitter old men come along to sort this out.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The prosecutor in Texas could have brought charges without a grand jury...still could, in fact.

[Southern Yankee]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Special interest groups manipulating the DA's office? Cite?

If you're going to ask for a cite for this, shouldn't you provide one for this:

Once more: Grand juries in cases like this are used to provide political cover and give prosecutors an excuse not to have to prosecute unpopular cases. ?

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

I might be wrong on the NY case, but not on the Texas case.

This thread is about the NY case.

Thanks for playing. We've got a lovely copy of our home game as a parting gift for you.

Johnny will validate your parking right before you hit the "unsubscribe" button.

The concierge desk will direct you to the Joe Horn thread.

Have a nice day, and don't forget to KEEP SMILING!





Edited to add- while I was posting this, Diogenes changed his above post to:

The prosecutor in Texas could have brought charges without a grand jury...still could, in fact.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Edited to add- while I was posting this, Diogenes changed his above post to:
I didn't change any posts.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

My apologies, you did not.

I mistook your 12:07 for your 12:10.

[Rick]

Never mind

[Rick]

HSHP Those cases are exactly the same.
In the New York case a cop shot a person.
In the Texas case
Oh wait.
Yeah, these cases are exactly the same, only completely different.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

HSHP Those cases are exactly the same.
In the New York case a cop shot a person.
In the Texas case
Oh wait.
Yeah, these cases are exactly the same, only completely different.

So what's your point?

Did the GJ in NY give the guy a pass because he was a cop?
Did the GJ in TX give the guy a pass because they'd have done the same?

The issue isn't about how the cases are the same or different. The issue is about whether the DA is somehow blameworthy.

In NY, he's much less blameworthy- he did everything he could to get Sawyer, and he couldn't. In TX, the DA could arguably try to put Horn in front of a jury anyway, but he'd probably be wasting the state's money, because if a GJ can't/won't indict him, it's unlikely a jury will convict him.


NY residents don't exactly trust cops, you know.

I'd say that Horn had an easier time getting away from the GJ.

And Horn won't be punished for his actions. Incarceration or no, Sawyer's life is pretty much done, while Horn is a hero.


As a purely practical matter, failure to get a GJ indictment likely means that you wouldn't get a conviction. If the GJ can't see BRINGING him to trial, with relaxed evidentiary and procedural rules, how is the state going to make its case when its hands are tied in ways they weren't with the GJ?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

HSHP Those cases are exactly the same.
In the New York case a cop shot a person.
In the Texas case
Oh wait.
Yeah, these cases are exactly the same, only completely different.
What I think is similar about them is that they are both cases of prima facie murder which would have been politically unpopular to prosecute. My take on the Horn case, in particular, came from hearing media analysis by lawyers familiar with Texas law. I heard two or three different ones say that the prosecutor was using the grand jury process as a means of avoiding the politically unpopular move of bringing charges himself.

I assumed the NY case involved a similar motivation, but i accept that I might have been wrong about that.

[Rick]

Well since the OP is about cops getting away with murder, the Texas case is not really germane to the discussion.

[Rick]

So what's your point?

Did the GJ in NY give the guy a pass because he was a cop?
Did the GJ in TX give the guy a pass because they'd have done the same?

The issue isn't about how the cases are the same or different. The issue is about whether the DA is somehow blameworthy.

In NY, he's much less blameworthy- he did everything he could to get Sawyer, and he couldn't. In TX, the DA could arguably try to put Horn in front of a jury anyway, but he'd probably be wasting the state's money, because if a GJ can't/won't indict him, it's unlikely a jury will convict him.


NY residents don't exactly trust cops, you know.

I'd say that Horn had an easier time getting away from the GJ.

And Horn won't be punished for his actions. Incarceration or no, Sawyer's life is pretty much done, while Horn is a hero.


As a purely practical matter, failure to get a GJ indictment likely means that you wouldn't get a conviction. If the GJ can't see BRINGING him to trial, with relaxed evidentiary and procedural rules, how is the state going to make its case when its hands are tied in ways they weren't with the GJ?
I agree with you 100%.
I guess I have not had enough coffee this AM and my sarcasm is not up to snuff. I was making fun of DTC for saying the cases were alike or even very similar.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

I was making fun of DTC for saying the cases were alike or even very similar.

Oh.

In that case, carry on, then.

[samclem]

I going back a reading some background stories in NY newspapers from the last 10 months or so, I conclude that there were a few important things that would have made it hard to convict the policeman of any form of murder.

This happened at 6AM. All of the parties from both side had been drinking the entire evening(although, there is no direct proof the officer had been, it was pretty well assumed that the reason he disappeared after the shooting was to sober up. Otherwise, he would have been subject to a breathalyzer).

Both passengers in the victim's car admitted to being drunk, and one allowed as how he heard the victim say "Want to see my new Ruger?" and then put his hand in imitation of how one would fire a gun.

If the occupants of the victims car had said they were all on the way home from working the third shift, and had nothing to say about the victim talking about having a gun or mimicking firing a weapon, then the office would have been tried for some degree of murder or manslaughter.

[Little Nemo]

I read an interesting article a couple of months back (sorry, I can't give a cite) that was talking about the changes in police training in the last couple of decades. It said that the police used to be trained to the mentality that their job was to protect the public. Self-protection was also trained but not as the primary mission.

The article said that this has changed. It said that police acadamies and departments now emphasize that self-protection is the priority and protecting other people is what you do after that.

The increase in police shootings is one result of this. Police officers are now trained to shoot if a suspect does anything that might be threatening. If somebody reachs for something they can't see, they're going to assume it's a weapon and shoot the suspect first.

A less publicized effect is changes in hostage situations. In the past, the police would often use "storm" tactics in a hostage situation. It often worked but it also put officers in danger. Now the police will stand back and wait. They'll negotiate but if that doesn't work they're more likely to use snipers rather than assault squads. Most people aren't going to argue with the idea of fewer police casualties at the expense of more abducter casualties - but this change has also increased the rate of hostage casualties.

The article also discussed some other changes like reductions in street patrols, undercover operations and high-speed chases. The basic argument is that the police have decided they're not going to take any risks they can avoid without considering the effect it has on other aspects of law enforcement.

[OtakuLoki]

Diogenes the Cynic, AIUI for NYS law a grand jury must the the originator of the charges in any criminal case.

We've got a recent case here in Rochester, where a man, after a softball game, rabbit punched another man in the back of the head. The other guy was taken to the hospital after collapsing, and died there a few days later. Everyone and their uncle is after the idiot who did the punching to be locked up, and they still had to wait for the Grand Jury to indict. And then again, when the guy died, they had to take it back to the Grand Jury to upgrade the charges from assault to murder.

I don't know whether you're correct about TX not requiring a Grand Jury to indict, but I'm 95% sure that in NY it is a required step. (Sorry, I'm not going to start reading huge tracts of NYS Code to prove this one way or the other, when I imagine one of the lawyers on the board will be by to offer the cite much more quickly than I ever could.)

[Chimera]

I'm sorry to say that most cops I've met fell into the second category, but I've met a few that fell into the first, and they give me hope, they show what is possible. But so few, alas, so few.

Unfortunately, my life experience shows the same. Cops are not mystical Paladins and Knights, full of Integrity and Honor. They're Humans like you and me, prone to the same mistakes, failures, weaknesses and flaws.

I understand now why some people completely distrust the Police, even when they (the people) are doing nothing wrong. Because I've seen, up close and personal, cops (and retired cops) making shit up, directly lying and abusing their power. Unfortunately, in our Hero Worship Society, we bill them as more than they are, and we invest them with qualities they don't necessarily have.

I haven't read the article or the case, so I can't speak to details, but even if he's not prosecuted, if he IS fired, then chances are good that he will not be able to find another job in Law Enforcement.

The unfortunate back side, as we in Minneapolis have seen repeatedly, is that the Union may step in and protect the bastard, making it impossible to fire him.

[elucidator]

We got it pretty darned good, by comparison. You read up on the police dept. in New Orleans, pre-Katrina, and you will run screaming from the room.

[SmartAleq]

Hey, if you really want evidence that cops can kill anybody and get away with it, move to beautiful Portland OR!

Here, it's apparently okay to shoot and kill a naked, dazed, burned accident victim. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fouad_Kaady)

It's also okay to beat an unarmed, schizophrenic homeless guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Chasse) and then stand around joking about it long enough that he ends up dying of his injuries.

But then, in Portland having a warrant out for you and attempting to drive away (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendra_James) is also a capital crime--who knew? Although to be absolutely fair, perhaps our cops aren't aware that sometimes gunshot victims need medical attention. I'm sure they're working to educate them a bit.

Maybe they oughta tell the cops that tasering people for long periods of time, especially AFTER you shoot them (http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/PPR38/shootings38.html) is kinda the definition of "overkill." In the case of this poor bastard (http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/perezshooting.html) it was probably a boat race as to whether or not the coke, (http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/07/082708.php) the shooting or the tasing was gonna kill him. Again, though, in Portland traffic infractions are quite often capital crimes.

Portland po-po's also sure do love their tasers! (http://wweek.com/story.php?story=4795)

As to whether or not being fired from your job is sufficient "consequence," in this town you just go five miles over to Beaverton (http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/2008/01/beaverton_hires_cop_who_shot_j.php) after the Portland cops let you go.

In Silverton, a town south of Portland, it's also apparently a capital crime to be Irish, mentally disturbed, have a poor sense of direction and be an inconsiderate houseguest. (http://news.aol.com/story/_a/family-members-say-irish-citizen-killed/n20080704035509990008) But then again, with fine examples of police officers such as these (http://www.kptv.com/news/16869188/detail.html#-) what else can we expect, really?

So, is this enough RO to keep the thread going? :p

[E-Sabbath]

I really think we should disarm our police. It would increase the level of civility of conversation greatly.

[Billdo]

Just for the record, Article 1, section 6 of the New York State Constitution says, in relevant part:

§ 6. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime . . . , unless on indictment of a grand jury, except that a person held for the action of a grand jury upon a charge for such an offense, other than one punishable by death or life imprisonment, with the consent of the district attorney, may waive indictment by a grand jury and consent to be prosecuted on an information filed by the district attorney.
I've never served on a grand jury, but several friends who have that have said that for the two or four week term they've sat on, they've returned a "No True Bill" (i.e. not indicted) about one or so of the multiple cases that have come before them. That's consistent fairly consistent with the statistics provided in the page linked by tomndebb, which said that Brooklyn (Kings County) grand juries dismiss about 7% of indictments.

[smiling bandit]

This makes me wonder if the prosecutor was grossly inadequate. The trith is that innately biased juries which refuse to indict or convict based on the evidence are extremely rare. Almost everyone is willing to follow the law in these matters even if they don't agree with it.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

This makes me wonder if the prosecutor was grossly inadequate.


Or maybe there just wasn't enough.

This happened at 6AM. All of the parties from both side had been drinking the entire evening(although, there is no direct proof the officer had been, it was pretty well assumed that the reason he disappeared after the shooting was to sober up. Otherwise, he would have been subject to a breathalyzer).

Both passengers in the victim's car admitted to being drunk, and one allowed as how he heard the victim say "Want to see my new Ruger?" and then put his hand in imitation of how one would fire a gun.

If the occupants of the victims car had said they were all on the way home from working the third shift, and had nothing to say about the victim talking about having a gun or mimicking firing a weapon, then the office would have been tried for some degree of murder or manslaughter.

Assuming that all this is true...

Can't get in that he was drunk at trial. Might not even be able to get in that he was drinking.

But you sure can get in enough to get the cop a self-defense claim and enough reasonable doubt to get you away from first-degree murder, and maybe even all the way out of homicide to begin with.

Sometimes a GJ with enough evidence to indict recognizes that it's got nowhere near enough to make it through trial, and decides that it's best to spend the court's money elsewhere, especially when the evidence they've got is all the evidence they're likely to get.

[ZebraShaSha]

Hey, if you really want evidence that cops can kill anybody and get away with it, move to beautiful Portland OR!

Here, it's apparently okay to shoot and kill a naked, dazed, burned accident victim. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fouad_Kaady)

It's also okay to beat an unarmed, schizophrenic homeless guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Chasse) and then stand around joking about it long enough that he ends up dying of his injuries.

But then, in Portland having a warrant out for you and attempting to drive away (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendra_James) is also a capital crime--who knew? Although to be absolutely fair, perhaps our cops aren't aware that sometimes gunshot victims need medical attention. I'm sure they're working to educate them a bit.

Maybe they oughta tell the cops that tasering people for long periods of time, especially AFTER you shoot them (http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/PPR38/shootings38.html) is kinda the definition of "overkill." In the case of this poor bastard (http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/perezshooting.html) it was probably a boat race as to whether or not the coke, (http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/07/082708.php) the shooting or the tasing was gonna kill him. Again, though, in Portland traffic infractions are quite often capital crimes.

Portland po-po's also sure do love their tasers! (http://wweek.com/story.php?story=4795)

As to whether or not being fired from your job is sufficient "consequence," in this town you just go five miles over to Beaverton (http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/2008/01/beaverton_hires_cop_who_shot_j.php) after the Portland cops let you go.

In Silverton, a town south of Portland, it's also apparently a capital crime to be Irish, mentally disturbed, have a poor sense of direction and be an inconsiderate houseguest. (http://news.aol.com/story/_a/family-members-say-irish-citizen-killed/n20080704035509990008) But then again, with fine examples of police officers such as these (http://www.kptv.com/news/16869188/detail.html#-) what else can we expect, really?

So, is this enough RO to keep the thread going? :p

Shit, I was going to say how Greensboro a few months back had 4 deaths by police, 3 unarmed, all in separate incidents, along with atleast 100 rowzers on "administrative leave" for their part in either being racists or a sex offender, but I think Portland wins. For now.

[smiling bandit]

Sometimes a GJ with enough evidence to indict recognizes that it's got nowhere near enough to make it through trial, and decides that it's best to spend the court's money elsewhere, especially when the evidence they've got is all the evidence they're likely to get.

That's also possible. Generally Grand Juries would indict anyway, even if the evidence isn't much to go on, as long as it meets Grand Jury requirements. Ultimately, we can't say why it happened, but the whole situation is somehow ridiculous, and Garbage In Garbage Out.

[Captain Amazing]

Once more: Grand juries in cases like this are used to provide political cover and give prosecutors an excuse not to have to prosecute unpopular cases.

I believe that grand jury indictment for felony is required by the Texas Constitution. From Article I, Section 10 of the state constitution:

and no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense, unless on an indictment of a grand jury, except in cases in which the punishment is by fine or imprisonment, otherwise than in the penitentiary, in cases of impeachment, and in cases arising in the army or navy, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger.

[Clothahump]

Once more: Grand juries in cases like this are used to provide political cover and give prosecutors an excuse not to have to prosecute unpopular cases.
Wrong.

In Texas, the grand jury process is required for felony prosecution. Article 1, section 10 of the Texas Constitution (emphasis mine):

Sec. 10. RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.
In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an
impartial jury. He shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof. He shall not be compelled to
give evidence against himself, and shall have the right of being heard by himself
or counsel, or both, shall be confronted by the witnesses against him and shall
have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, except that when
the witness resides out of the State and the offense charged is a violation of any
of the anti-trust laws of this State, the defendant and the State shall have the
right to produce and have the evidence admitted by deposition, under such rules
and laws as the Legislature may hereafter provide; and no person shall be held
to answer for a criminal offense, unless on an indictment of a grand jury, except
in cases in which the punishment is by fine or imprisonment, otherwise than in
the penitentiary, in cases of impeachment, and in cases arising in the army or
navy, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger.
(Amended Nov. 5, 1918.)
http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/pubslegref/TxConst.pdf

[SmartAleq]

Shit, I was going to say how Greensboro a few months back had 4 deaths by police, 3 unarmed, all in separate incidents, along with atleast 100 rowzers on "administrative leave" for their part in either being racists or a sex offender, but I think Portland wins. For now.

Yeah, it's pretty nutso here on the po-po front--it gets even nastier when you compare the number of police shootings of ethnic persons compared to the overall percentages of said ethnic persons in the general population. The term "racial profiling" gets thrown around a LOT. There's also a long standing skirmish between the homeless on one side, with the regular police and the one-step-up-from-mall-cops PPI (http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=315932&category=34029) goons on the other. Add in a sit-lie ordinance that's just skirts the borders of constitutionality and it gets interesting to say the least.

I really love my city, but sometimes the police issues can be awfully harrowing.

[Carol Stream]

What is a reprocussion?

[elucidator]

Its a do-over of a procussion.

[Kinthalis]

Also known as a typo. Give me a break.

Where are they getting these juries from, they never indict when it comes to police officers. Are they all related to police personnel?

[Carol Stream]

Also known as a typo. Give me a break.

Where are they getting these juries from, they never indict when it comes to police officers. Are they all related to police personnel?


It's not a typo.

[SmartAleq]

It's not a typo.

Isn't there an exhaust pipe you could be sucking on right now?

[samclem]

Isn't there an exhaust pipe you could be sucking on right now?
Hey! She's too busy trying to figure out where her piano came from. Give her a break. :(

[Carol Stream]

Hey! She's too busy trying to figure out where her piano came from. Give her a break. :(


You are a jerk. Can't you enforce your own godamn rules?

[samclem]

Also known as a typo. Give me a break.

Where are they getting these juries from, they never indict when it comes to police officers. Are they all related to police personnel? But, of course they do. Maybe your knee hit you in the head. Police officers get indicted all the time. Just not this time.

[samclem]

You are a jerk. Can't you enforce your own godamn rules?
I'm sure you're right, and I've forgotten to enforce a rule. Which one?

[Carol Stream]

I'm sure you're right, and I've forgotten to enforce a rule. Which one?

The one about wishing death on other posters. jerk.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Carol's recent infatuation with SDMB law and order reminds me a lot of an episode of "COPS"—except in this case, the ignorant shirtless redneck is the one trying to enforce the law.

[Carol Stream]

I'm sure you're right, and I've forgotten to enforce a rule. Which one?

Are you going to enforce the rule, or not?

[Giraffe]

Isn't there an exhaust pipe you could be sucking on right now?SmartAleq, if you're suggesting that Carol should suck on an exhaust pipe until the point of asphyxiation, then I'll note that such a request is against the rules of this forum. Please don't do it again.

[Carol Stream]

SmartAleq, if you're suggesting that Carol should suck on an exhaust pipe until the point of asphyxiation, then I'll note that such a request is against the rules of this forum. Please don't do it again.

You're funny. :)

[samclem]

SmartAleq, if you're suggesting that Carol should suck on an exhaust pipe until the point of asphyxiation, then I'll note that such a request is against the rules of this forum. Please don't do it again.

You're funny. :) So, he's funny and I'm a jerk.

When you inserted yourself into this thread, your first post said What is a reprocussion? You added nothing to the discussion.

Your next post said
You are a jerk. Can't you enforce your own godamn rules?.

So, what did you add to this thread?

And, just to clarify, I'm not posting any of this as a moderator on the Boards.

I truly don't see what you're on about.

I personally(no hint of any employment on this Board), think you shoud suck on an exhaust pipe until you vomit out some of your bile. I don't want you to die. I don't wish that on any poster. But, if you got a near-death experience out of it(sorry, DT) then that would be OK.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

So, what did you add to this thread?


Definitely not the proper amount of "d"s in the cussword. :D

Seriously, people, if the evidence we have is to be believed, there's no way a conviction was coming out of this.

There may not even have been enough to establish all the elements of a homicide, much less a murder.

There are actual outrageous things to get all recreational on.

[Carol Stream]

So, he's funny and I'm a jerk.



Yes, because you don't enforce the rules equally. Wishihg death oh another poster is not alllowed, right?

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

Yes, because you don't enforce the rules equally. Wishihg death oh another poster is not alllowed, right?

Looks like you made up for the missing "d" with an extra "l." Pretty funny for the drive-by threadshitter making fun of another's spelling.


And these days, with the advent of the catalytic converter, it is unlikely that sucking on an exhaust pipe would kill you. (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1034654) It would probably just render you unconscious and give you a heck of a headache.


So unless he asked you whether you had an exhaust pipe from a pre-1975 model year car on which to suck, which the court reporter informs me he did not, then he was probably only wishing you mild to moderate discomfort.


Can we be warned for wishing mild to moderate discomfort on people? Can I get a mod ruling?

[Pedro]

And these days, with the advent of the catalytic converter, it is unlikely that sucking on an exhaust pipe would kill you. (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1034654) It would probably just render you unconscious and give you a heck of a headache.


So unless he asked you whether you had an exhaust pipe from a pre-1975 model year car on which to suck, which the court reporter informs me he did not, then he was probably only wishing you mild to moderate discomfort.


Can we be warned for wishing mild to moderate discomfort on people? Can I get a mod ruling?

No mod ruling here, but that's a hell of an ignorant thing to say. Exhaust fumes have carbon monoxide, which is poisonous and lethal in large enough concentration.

[Klaatu]

Yes, because you don't enforce the rules equally. Wishihg death oh another poster is not alllowed, right?

You are not well liked here. Nor am I. I don't give a shit but you scored a point with Giraffe, (and that was a perfect example of non-biased moderation BTW Kudos) and you shit it away, you dumbfuck.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

No mod ruling here, but that's a hell of an ignorant thing to say. Exhaust fumes have carbon monoxide, which is poisonous and lethal in large enough concentration.

Which large concentration is NOT going to be achieved by wrapping one's lips around an exhaust pipe.

Get a GRIP, man.

[Pedro]

Which large concentration is NOT going to be achieved by wrapping one's lips around an exhaust pipe.

Get a GRIP, man.

Fair enough. The catalytic converter efficiency is much higher than I thought, so ignorance fought for me too.

But if you suck on it you'll breath all 1% of it in. Even if you pass out before reaching critical toxicity levels, still dangerous. I was reacting to the "headache" comment. That's not something I would be comfortable saying, is all.

[Clothahump]

Also known as a typo. Give me a break.

Where are they getting these juries from, they never indict when it comes to police officers. Are they all related to police personnel?
From the general voter roles, same as a regular jury summons.

[samclem]

You are not well liked here. Nor am I. I don't know you from Adam's off-ox*http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ada1.htm , but why are you not liked here?

[elucidator]

Still, its a thought! A special category of poster, someone with a comprehensive knowledge of The Rules....all the rules, not just the Cliff Notes version, the complete Protocols of the Elders of Cecil...and they would be specially empowered to patrol threads and ensure that the mods are in strict compliance.

We could call them the Mod Squad!

[Klaatu]

Still, its a thought! A special category of poster, someone with a comprehensive knowledge of The Rules....all the rules, not just the Cliff Notes version, the complete Protocols of the Elders of Cecil...and they would be specially empowered to patrol threads and ensure that the mods are in strict compliance.

We could call them the Mod Squad!

Well then, I would nominate you, Lib and Sam. But then that would be the Odd Squad. :p

[elucidator]

Cool, with me, but don't think Lib will go for anything short of God Squad.

[eleanorigby]

Hey! She's too busy trying to figure out where her piano came from. Give her a break. :(


sam--darling: That's CairoCarol who's got an extra piano now, not a suburb of Chicago not known for anything remarkable in any way whatsoever except for it might have gender issues.




How can anyone think that procussions is not a typo? Maybe that Chicago suburb is ground zero for CO damaged folk?

Lucy--there's a Sod Squad joke somewhere in my head, but it won't birth itself... :cool:

[elucidator]

"Green side up, dammit! Green side up!"

[Don't fight the hypothetical]

Carol's recent infatuation with SDMB law and order reminds me a lot of an episode of "COPS"—except in this case, the ignorant shirtless redneck is the one trying to enforce the law.
Now that's some godamn funny shit there. You remember the one where the ignorant shirtless redneck's head breaks through the wooden fence? Imagine him yelling procedure to the other cop. Too too funny.

[SmartAleq]

Why I swan, Mr Giraffe, you know I would never wish such a thing. I was thinking more of third degree burns on the lips and the mental image of Carol Stream deep throating the bidness end of of a late model Honda Civic fart cannon, tiny hands with stubby fingers grasping desperately to shove every last inch into his/her/its puckered little piehole.

Truly, isn't that enough? It brings a tiny tear to my eye, it does.

Oh, and Carol? When you get done with that Civic I'm sure there's a leper colony that needs oral servicing, a place where those puffy, blistered lips would get just the kind of workout they so richly deserve and so obviously are pining for. With modern day antibiotics I doubt you'd catch so much as a sniffle, but think of the extra parts you could bring home for later!

Wishing death indeed. Some people need to get a grip. On a Honda Civic fart cannon!

[elucidator]

And if you order today, you can't get FREE the second CD collection of Leper Colony Love Songs with Patsy Cline's "I Fall to Pieces" and so much more....

[samclem]

sam--darling: That's CairoCarol who's got an extra piano now, not a suburb of Chicago not known for anything remarkable in any way whatsoever except for it might have gender issues.
:
As Kay Kyser used to say "that's right, you're wrong." Only I was wrong. Thanks for correcting me.

Carol. I apologize for confusing you with another poster. Cairo is in Illinois, Carol Stream is in Illinois. Just my old mind playing tricks.

You still added nothing of value to the thread.

[Turek]

You still added nothing of value to the thread.

Not directly, but it did lead to this:

I was thinking more of third degree burns on the lips and the mental image of Carol Stream deep throating the bidness end of of a late model Honda Civic fart cannon, tiny hands with stubby fingers grasping desperately to shove every last inch into his/her/its puckered little piehole.

which, you know, is, like, funny and stuff.

[JThunder]

I don't think you're very informed about this. Wait until the lawyers chime in.Diogenes, remember how people say that you're often overly confident in your "knowledge"?

This is one such case.

[eleanorigby]

Carol. I apologize for confusing you with another poster. Cairo is in Illinois, Carol Stream is in Illinois. Just my old mind playing tricks.



Could they be nom de plumes or code names for secret Doper business? Or perhaps one is The Evil Twin (no guesses for which)?
I have one question:

Has anyone ever seen CairoCarol* and Carolstream together in the same room at the same time? :eek:

Lucy--very nice. And Kermit can lead it. :)




*my apologies to CC who has never done a thing to me except become notable by acquiring large musical instruments effortlessly.

[Beware of Doug]

Where are they getting these juries from, they never indict when it comes to police officers. Are they all related to police personnel?But, of course they do. Maybe your knee hit you in the head. Police officers get indicted all the time. Just not this time.We shouldn't underestimate the possibility that individual jury members could get harassed by police. I'm sure it's happened someplace, probably quite a few places.

[Telemark]

We shouldn't underestimate the possibility that individual jury members could get harassed by police. I'm sure it's happened someplace, probably quite a few places.
I've had several friends who served on Grand Juries, and it never came up. Do you have a cite of this ever happening?

[Zebra]

The thing is, if a grand jury, which almost always says go ahead, and there is no 'defence' just a DA presenting a case, and the grand jury says 'no go', well, maybe, just maybe, the DA didn't try very hard and maybe the fact that the DA and the police have a close working relationship has something to do with this lack of trying.

[Acsenray]

The usual line about grand juries is that a grand jury is in the complete control of the prosecutor. If the prosecutor wants to, he can get a grand jury to indict a "ham sandwich." Ergo, the assumption is that if a grand jury didn't indict, the prosecutor didn't really want an indictment.

[Digital Stimulus]

I've had several friends who served on Grand Juries, and it never came up.To be comparable, though, your friends would've had to have been on a Grand Jury considering charges against a police officer. Were they? I doubt that there'd be much police harrassment of jurors for, say, a gang-related shooting.

I'm not taking a position either way, I'm just sayin'...

[D_Odds]

IANAL, but I did serve on a Grand Jury in NYC (hated it with a passion). My understanding was that every criminal case had to clear a grand jury before going to trial (but perhaps misdemeanors did not). In the state of NY, this statement is certainly not true.Grand juries in cases like this are used to provide political cover and give prosecutors an excuse not to have to prosecute unpopular cases

[Telemark]

To be comparable, though, your friends would've had to have been on a Grand Jury considering charges against a police officer.
GJ around here sit for something like 6 months and hear all sorts of cases. If there were any charges against the police they would have heard them. I don't know if there were any during that time.

[Digital Stimulus]

GJ around here sit for something like 6 months and hear all sorts of cases.I know it's been mentioned upthread now that I think about it, but this didn't really sink in before. For some reason -- probably having seen too many cop shows -- I was operating under the impression that GJs were convened on a per-trial basis.

Doesn't change my point, but being very unfamiliar with the topic is the reason I had to add the disclaimer about not taking a position. Thanks for bringing my attention to that particular item of ignorance.

[dropzone]

Maybe that Chicago suburb is ground zero for CO damaged folk?As a matter of fact, I once got a mild case of CO poisoning in Carol Stream. Or Glendale Heights. I had borrowed my MIL's ultra-low-miles Regal which suffered the fate of many cars belonging to little old ladies that were only driven to church on Sunday and developed an exhaust leak. I was waiting for my wife to finish a business call and occupied myself watching my fingernails turn blue.

And you people thought I don't know how to have fun.

[SmartAleq]

GJ around here sit for something like 6 months and hear all sorts of cases.

Holy cow, that's several orders of magnitude more sucky than regular jury duty--how in hell can anyone take six months off to serve on such a thing, are the jurors compensated in some way? I mean more than the usual five bucks bus fare and a bologna sandwich kind of deal?

dropzone--*snerk* :D

[Telemark]

Holy cow, that's several orders of magnitude more sucky than regular jury duty--how in hell can anyone take six months off to serve on such a thing, are the jurors compensated in some way? I mean more than the usual five bucks bus fare and a bologna sandwich kind of deal?
IIRC they met once every other week, or every third week for an afternoon. I'm sure it is different in different locales.

[eleanorigby]

As a matter of fact, I once got a mild case of CO poisoning in Carol Stream. Or Glendale Heights. I had borrowed my MIL's ultra-low-miles Regal which suffered the fate of many cars belonging to little old ladies that were only driven to church on Sunday and developed an exhaust leak. I was waiting for my wife to finish a business call and occupied myself watching my fingernails turn blue.

And you people thought I don't know how to have fun.

:eek: That explains so much about that suburb AND that poster! It's brain damage, pure and simple.... You didn't suck on the tailpipe by chance, did you? :dubious:


Glad you're better now.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Carol. I apologize for confusing you with another poster. Cairo is in Illinois, Carol Stream is in Illinois. Just my old mind playing tricks.
When you think of Cairo, the one you think of is in.... Illinois?

[Baker]

I don't know about other states, but in Kansas I sat on a federal grand jury and it went like this. We met once every six weeks, for a year and a half, so that works out to twelve sittings. We were told that each sitting could last for one to three days, but only once did a sitting go into a second day.

Most of the cases were either drug or gun related, or guns and drugs. There was a fairly complicated multi state business bankruptcy case, and a sexual battery case. The latter was federal because it occured in a middle school on a military post.

Twenty three people sat for the jury, and a case was sent to trial by majority vote. All but a handful of cases were unanimous though, or nearly so. We didn't have the pressure of deciding guilt or innocence. One time though it was very close, twelve to eleven. I was one of the eleven, and thought the police evidence in the drug related charge sounded really iffy. Hopefully the defense at the regular trial was able to jump on that.

Compared to a trial jury we were paid fairly well, $40 a day. Still, not minimum wage, but more than a trial jury. And my job paid me even though I wasn't at work. We got mileage and parking. I was lucky because I was called to the jury that sat in Topeka, the others sitting in Wichita and Kansas City, Kansas. I could have had to go there every six weeks! We had a guy who had to drive in from the Colorado border each time. He got, in addition to mileage, meal tickets and a hotel voucher.

[buttonjockey308]

If the DA can be manipulated by special interest groups (and the Horn case was in Texas, remember. The public sentiment was quite WITH Horn) then he ahs no business being in the job.

Does Quannel X ring a bell, skipper?

What about The right honorless Shiela Jackson Lee (http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou080706_tnt_jacksonlee.2c828853.html)

I'd say those interests in the Horn thing are pretty special, wouldn't you?

[Weirddave]

I don't get the outrage here. According to the story, Mr. Tirado gestured as if he was armed and said "You want to see my new Ruger?". By doing that, he escalated the confrontation to one where any reasonable person would consider Mr. Tirado armed and to be in danger for one's life.

A moment to talk about Mr. Sawyer. I find it despicable that he ran away for almost a day, likely to sober up. I don't care that he was a cop, that really has no bearing on the story, for all practical purposes he was simply a man who had a CCP. All of the cop hate in this thread is completely immaterial. When he decided to go out drinking, he should have left his weapon behind. That's the law for civilians with a CCP and it should be the law for cops as well(I dunno if it is). HE HAD NO BUSINESS CARRYING A WEAPON IN AN IMPAIRED CONDITION, COP OR NO.

Still, the fault here lies on Mr. Tirado. HE was the one who indicated he had a gun, HE was the one who indicated that he was going to draw it, HE was the one who invited, no, demanded a deadly response. If someone confronts me over a traffic dispute, and he says he has a gun and makes as if to draw it, and I am legally carrying a weapon, OF COURSE I am going to draw my weapon and fire at him as many times as it takes to put him down. Who wouldn't and who could blame me? All of the anti-cop RO in this thread is totally misplaced.

Let's lay this out as simply as possible (in deference to the anti-gun crowd).

You legally have a gun, for whatever reason.

A man confronts you angrily, and gets more and more upset as time goes on.

You try to placate him to no avail.

He reaches into his coat and screams " I bet you don't feel the same way after you taste my gun, motherfucker!"

So....what do you do?

I know I've exaggerated for effect here, but if you do anything other than draw your gun and blow his fucking head off....regardless of what's in his hand when it comes out of his coat...then you are a fucking moron, and 9 times out of 10 you'll be a dead fucking moron, and deservedly so.

Why should Mr. Sawyer be expected to act any differently just because he's a cop? He's made a number of mistakes, and it looks like they'll deservedly cost him his job, but the shooting (given the facts as we know them)? Justified, justified, absolutely justified.

[Bookkeeper]

I don't get the outrage here. According to the story, Mr. Tirado gestured as if he was armed and said "You want to see my new Ruger?". By doing that, he escalated the confrontation to one where any reasonable person would consider Mr. Tirado armed and to be in danger for one's life.
I was watching one of those COPS-type video shows on Sunday evening. They showed an episode where a woman pulled over for suspected DUI jumped out of the car holding a black object and pointing it at the two cops making the stop. They immediately drew their weapons, pointed them at the woman, and then ... tried to determine if she really had a gun! Having finally identified the object as a car phone, they proceeded to arrest her without shooting her multiple times!

Note that this woman was clearly trying to look like she was armed, and even insulted the cops for not shooting her as she was being arrested, but they felt no need to shoot, pepper spray, or taser her. Too often, it seems that police shoot or taser a suspect simply because it's easier than an alternative method of dealing with a situation rather than because it's warranted. (Yes, and Canadian cops can be as bad as any others (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/11/14/bc-taservideo.html).)

[Weirddave]

I was watching one of those COPS-type video shows on Sunday evening. They showed an episode where a woman pulled over for suspected DUI jumped out of the car holding a black object and pointing it at the two cops making the stop. They immediately drew their weapons, pointed them at the woman, and then ... tried to determine if she really had a gun! Having finally identified the object as a car phone, they proceeded to arrest her without shooting her multiple times!


That was their mistake then. In the situation you've described, they absolutely should have shot the woman. When someone threatens a cop with a gun or an object that they are trying to make look like a gun, they deserve to be shot. Period. Most of the time it will be a gun, why should the cops put their lives at risk for that one in a hundred times where the person is threatening them with a banana and not a Glock?

[Zebra]

Did anyone except for the shooter confirm that the dead guy did guesture and say that?

[Weirddave]

Did anyone except for the shooter confirm that the dead guy did guesture and say that?
Someone in the dead guys car said that he said that.

[OtakuLoki]

Did anyone except for the shooter confirm that the dead guy did guesture and say that?


From the article linked in post #4, by Gfactor: According to Sawyer and one of Tirado's passengers, the unarmed Tirado called out, "Want to see my new Ruger?" and extended his arm as they drove near E. 117th St.

[kaylasdad99]

Carol Stream has self-identified as female on these boards. I suggest we take her word for it, and drop the issue.

And Carol Stream, IL, is the mailing address of Columbia House, of record club, CD club, video club, and DVD club fame. No cite, but I think I've seen that return address attached to other businesses of a mail-order nature, as well.

[E-Sabbath]

I thought Carol Stream just became upset when people identified it as female and then refused to say which gender it was.

[gonzomax]

http://www.hrw.org/reports98/police/uspo63.htm In Detroit the police continually commit acts to civilians that result in law suits. The cops may get away with it but the city pays over and over.