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

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:

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.

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:

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.

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

Grand jurors aren’t political leaders, they’re citizens:

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


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.

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.

Quite the opposite, Diogenes, quite the opposite.

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?

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.

Where do you live that this happens?

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.

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.


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.

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?

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

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?

Of course you don’t think so.

You’re mistaken yet again.

This letter/web page 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.

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