Grand Jury sessions, at least in Virginia, are unrecorded sessions where jurors only hear one side of the story. They only have to find probable cause to issue an indictment, after all. No defense is presented, and in fact, no representatives of the defendants are allowed to be present.
I am, as an attorney, completely baffled why the jurors were given any information about the officers’ remorse after the fact. It as, as Rachellelogram aptly state, not relevant.
“And it is the finding of the relevant legal authority that they do not.”
I think it’s reasonable to take issue with this *erroneous *finding, just as people do when juries decide, despite videotape evidence of excessive force, that they will not hold police accountable for engaging in the criminal act of beating the shit out of someone. Instead, a jury routinely hands down a flatly incorrect declaration that the party is not guilty which, as we know, is not the same as innocence. (I prefer “proved [beyond a reasonable doubt]” or “not proved”, myself, which though it may seem silly, makes quite a lot of difference.)
It is hard to tell whether this is solely misplaced bias in favor of the police or an attitude that someone deserved it, or whether the jurors unconsciously or consciously have decided they’d rather face the ridicule and ire of fellow citizens than risk active or passive retaliation to whatever degree by police. (Yes, police do have their shit lists and “don’t bother to help them” lists … particularly internally for anyone who is of a mind to keep with their oath. I wonder why people miss or refuse to acknowledge the simple reality that is there is a good reason why internal affairs people are considered scum of the earth by their colleagues, and largely worse than criminals.)
This is a problem elsewhere, but far more rare when a jury decides turnabout is fair play and refuses to convict someone they believe beyond a reasonable doubt committed a crime (e.g., OJ) as payback for the many, many people who have been wrongfully convicted.
I will confess to not being a member of the Virginia state bar. (Shocking, I know.) Is the DA/state’s attorney/other prosecutorial authority able to prosecute in the absence of a grand jury recommendation?
And that comes as an inevitable consequence of a system where a randomly-selected panel of uneducated laymen are the finders of both law and fact, and whose ruling is unimpeachable. I’m not saying the alternative would be better, but it’s what we have to live with.
We as a society need to outlaw or drastically curtail the use of flash-bang grenades and no-knock entries.
Certainly, Law Enforcement will cry to the heavens about their own safety and how this will make their jobs more dangerous. The rest of us need to cry even louder about OUR safety and the number of people and pets killed or injured needlessly through the use of these unnecessarily militaristic weapons and tactics being used on ordinary citizens.
“And that comes as an inevitable consequence of a system where a randomly-selected panel of uneducated laymen are the finders of both law and fact… I’m not saying the alternative would be better, but it’s what we have to live with.”
But it is NOT inevitable and we do not “have to live with [it].” The legislatures have the power to change the system (for instance, judges weren’t embued out of thin air with the power to throw out a verdict in certain circumstances). And we have the power to change the legislators (many of whom, sadly, are lawyers who are more interested in protecting the tribe and the legal industry than the general citizentry and the rule of law).
I suspect things will not change until the majority of citizens are not white, and this white person welcomes the day (assuming other intervening events don’t make the point moot, whether it be Ebola or some other wrath of nature or well-deserved karma befalling us).
Yes, I’m sure those types of cops think, “Too bad, maybe that infant shouldn’t have been hanging out with criminals, it’s his own fault, really.”
I’ve been unable to find the 15-page grand jury report that all of the news articles refer to, but this site has a list of what the review consisted of, which took place over six days.
In too many of these cases people push for criminal charges, miss, and then the cops are off the hook completely. I remember the Sean Bell shooting here in NYC. Almost every non-cop in the city pushed for indictments, got them, the cops got acquitted and then kept their jobs. It seemed so clear to me that it wasn’t an issue of those cops being criminal, but INCOMPETENT. Had they pushed for those officers to be fired instead of prosecuted, they had a much better shot.
Same here. Clearly these officers were flat incompetent. How hard would it have been to see it was a baby crib blocking the door and not throw a freaking GRENADE in it? But the community pushed for indictments, missed, and now they all get to still be cops. Ridiculous.
I can accept some collateral damage as cops try to enforce the law. What I can’t abide is cops lying to make themselves seem blameless.
There is nothing more toxic to our justice system than a cop bearing false witness. They’re not supposed to, but juries give a lot of extra weight to police testimony on the premise that they are the good guys and that they have extra training to observe stuff.
I think a lying cop should be subject to much harsher penalties. Loss of job, possible loss of pension, jail time. In true libertarian fashion, I think cities should pay crippling punitive damages for repeated police misconduct.
All of this police misconduct is reinforcing the perception that a lot of cops are folks that would have been criminals and thugs if they had been raised in a different neighborhood.
nm
More casualties in ‘The War on Drugs’. First, this little guy and now, yet again, justice.
As grude noted above (albeit with a tad too much hyperbole IMO), it this ‘war’ that is the root cause - the enabler - of so much needless suffering. Time for an armistice.
Bull. Far more harm is done to our society by drug cartels and the poisons they peddle than is done by the occasional and unfortunate accident in the course of bringing those terrorists to heel.
Exactly, that’s why we should legalise drugs so the cartels aren’t involved, and the drugs can be tested to ensure that there’s no poison in them.
…Which would not alleviate the harm to our society which was caused by the availability of those drugs in the first place, which lead to their being illegalized.
No, that’s not why they were made illegal, and the harm done from keeping them illegal, when anyone who wants to use them just does so anyway, is far greater than the harm that would be done if they were legal.
Did I miss something. You linked to a 2009 event and call that a history of killing people (plural)? From the way you described it, I was looking for a link to some North Korean agency or something along the lines of the rape of Nanking.
I’m sure you meant to say that they accidentally killed an innocent man in 2009.
Nothing can alleviate that harm, as we’ve proven with a failed drug war. We should try to alleviate the harm done by the failed drug war itself, because the harm from the drugs is going to happen no matter what.
Why would the cartels stop being involved? Do you think they’re going to just say “Shucks, you got us. Guess we’re out of business now.” or they are going to either take advantage of the improved ability to produce, move and sell their product if it’s easier, or fight against the new competition if it’s not?
You can’t ensure there’s no poison in them - not unless you’re going to start selling heroin with no heroin in it. It’s not just crap like krokodil that’s the problem, but also the stuff that turns addicts into the kind of brain-damaged moron who would commit a long, painful suicide like that.
How about police not acting in such a militaristic manner? I know police always say “if it’s a matter of my life or theirs, I’ll choose my life”. Well that would be fine if your “beat” was downtown Afghanistan, but most situations are not going to be like that.
I’ve read stories of 80 year old ladies being handcuffed with hands behind their back. But doesn’t a situation reach a point where someone has to say, “I don’t think we’re going to be pelted with semi-automatic rifles here”. Here’s a case where Boston police went much too far.
The Boston Police barged into an apartment whose only resident (at that time) was a 75 year old retired minister. Still, they pursued him and handcuffed him and several minutes later he died of a heart attack.
The warrant was for the third floor apartment but the police mistakenly raided the second floor (the warrant did not list an apartment number).
Basically, if we send police to act like storm-troopers, shouldn’t we be damned sure that everything is being done correctly? Maybe the people that issue the warrants as well as the police should take some responsibility (including criminal charges)?