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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
It’s also okay to beat an unarmed, schizophrenic homeless guy 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 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.
As to whether or not being fired from your job is sufficient “consequence,” in this town you just go five miles over to Beaverton after the Portland cops let you go.
