I really think we should disarm our police. It would increase the level of civility of conversation greatly.
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.
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.
[QUOTE= smiling bandit]
This makes me wonder if the prosecutor was grossly inadequate.
[/QUOTE]
Or maybe there just wasn’t enough.
[QUOTE= samclem]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=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.
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.
Maybe they oughta tell the cops that tasering people for long periods of time, especially AFTER you shoot them is kinda the definition of “overkill.” In the case of this poor bastard it was probably a boat race as to whether or not the coke, 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!
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.
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. But then again, with fine examples of police officers such as these what else can we expect, really?
So, is this enough RO to keep the thread going? 
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
I believe that grand jury indictment for felony is required by the Texas Constitution. From Article I, Section 10 of the state constitution:
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
Wrong.
In Texas, the grand jury process is required for felony prosecution. Article 1, section 10 of the Texas Constitution (emphasis mine):
[QUOTE=ZebraShaSha]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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 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.
What is a reprocussion?
Its a do-over of a procussion.
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?
[QUOTE=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?
[/QUOTE]
It’s not a typo.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
It’s not a typo.
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t there an exhaust pipe you could be sucking on right now?
[QUOTE=SmartAleq]
Isn’t there an exhaust pipe you could be sucking on right now?
[/QUOTE]
Hey! She’s too busy trying to figure out where her piano came from. Give her a break. 
[QUOTE=samclem]
Hey! She’s too busy trying to figure out where her piano came from. Give her a break.
[/QUOTE]
You are a jerk. Can’t you enforce your own godamn rules?
[QUOTE=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?
[/QUOTE]
But, of course they do. Maybe your knee hit you in the head. Police officers get indicted all the time. Just not this time.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
You are a jerk. Can’t you enforce your own godamn rules?
[/QUOTE]
I’m sure you’re right, and I’ve forgotten to enforce a rule. Which one?
[QUOTE=samclem]
I’m sure you’re right, and I’ve forgotten to enforce a rule. Which one?
[/QUOTE]
The one about wishing death on other posters. jerk.
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.