You may not see a lot of problems, but apparently the DA needed to have his ducks in a row before filing charges. All I’m saying is that it’s not necessarily a bad strategy in the long run, although in the short run it may have been frustrating to impatient people who perceive a double standard and don’t find that just.
True, I may not see the problems and they may eventually bubble to the surface. However, I remind you of the DA who went after The Duke lacrosse team. At the time I stated that he should be fired and lose his license for his actions. I don’t see a lot of i’s that need to be dotted here. I’m not saying there aren’t any, but I don’t see 2 weeks worth.
My bolding. In this case, there’s no doubt a crime occurred, the biggest question is the severity of that crime. A rush to judgment is incautious and can potentially make proving the charges more difficult for the prosecution. What’s wrong with allowing them the opportunity to build a slam-dunk case?
yes it is, but it isn’t exclusive of expediting the process to avoid civil unrest. It’s not like they had to prove he was there, locate the weapon, or prove he pulled the trigger. Everything they needed for a grand jury was wrapped up in a pretty pink bow.
Nothing is wrong with doing it right. I’m questioning the amount of time it took. The case for the Grand Jury need only prove that there is a likely case to begin with. He’s not being tried at this point.
I don’t mind your argument but at least throw me a debating bone to go with it. We have the weapon, multiple witnesses who are trained officers, and multiple videos taken from different vantage points. I don’t see a lot of legal technicalities to bog down this process but I do see a need to expedite it. Had they just arrested him and allowed bail it would have had a significant affect on public perception of what was going on.
Okay, I’m sure you’re right. I just believe it’s a dangerous precedent to set to have a DA make prosecutorial decisions based upon what an angry community feels ought to be done. His job is to prosecute crimes, not placate the general public. He needs to win a case like this. I’m just saying I don’t blame a DA for taking the time to get it right.
Of course, I am working from a position of trusting the justice system to work for justice, not for political expediency. I guess I just don’t see corruption and conspiracy everywhere. YMMV.
If the DA doesn’t do the job that he/she has been ELECTED to do the community should be angry and outraged. People were outraged because they knew that a crime was comitted and felt nothing was being done about it. If a person you cared about was killed in a similiar manner I’m sure you would feel the same way.
It’s been shown time and time again that justice isn’t always done especially when it comes to people of color. It’s always a good policy to be skeptical and question things. Think about how many people trusted Bernie Madoff
Can you read? Really. You just quoted me and ignored the very statement you quoted.
DAs don’t/shouldn’t prosecute based on what angry mobs feel. The evidence of “nothing being done” was what? No investigation? No arrest? No public statements about the incident?
No matter how petulant you choose to be, the DA’s office doesn’t work on your time frame because at the end of this – when the verdict comes down – the only thing that matters is that he got it right. If he takes his time make sure he get’s it right, the community is actually a lot better off than with a DA that shoots from the hip, like the one in the Duke case.
The reason, it seems, why you can’t apply logic and restraint is because you want to turn it everything personal. You need to appeal to my emotions in order to kick up outrage. It’s somewhat understandable if you were close to the victim, but I’m guessing you weren’t; neither were the rioting protesters.
There’s healthy skepticism and then there’s stirring up trouble. It seems to me you are intent on the latter. To what end? Your skepticism is based on a gap of time between an incident and an arrest, for which there are reasonable explanations, but you choose to ignore those explanations and charge impropriety. Based on what? Based on what would likely happen in a completely different scenario of a civilian having pulled the trigger.
Sorry, I’m going to leave my pitchfork in the barn. The screaming mob gives me a headache.
Leaving aside what the DA did or did not do, what about the fuckin’ police? Do you think, by your wildest stretch of imagination, that if a cop saw a civilian shoot a guy in the back while another was kneeling on him, that he would collect his ID and let him go home?
We are seeing almost a unique event here. Probably a hundred people, including several cops withnessed this first hand. At least 3 people video-recorded it. We may NEVER EVER, EVER EVER see a criminal act with more evidence than this.
That guy should have been led from the scene in handcuffs and slapped into a cell. Maybe he gets released later – maybe his gun did actually malfunction, maybe he gets out because the DA can’t figure out what exact charges to bring within a deadline. That doesn’t really matter* – the people saw incontrovertable evidence that a police officer was treated in a way that absolutely no one else ever would be after committing a crime.
If lawyer comes along and explains to me that the fact of police arresting this guy on the spot could in some legal manner screw up a later prosecution, I will change my opinion.
There may be an actual departmental policy regarding all of that.
The first duty of the police is probably going to be to maintain order as far as the crime scene (evidence preservation) and the potentially hostile crowd is concerned. In other words, call in the supervisor(s) and IA, and let them figure out what to do.
If the police were perceived to be fighting/arresting each other like a pack of piranna, I think it might raise some safety concerns.
As to why it took a week before some kind of warrant was sworn out, I have less to add, constructively.
Legal question: Would the various law enforcement and DA have been able to tell Mehrle that since he was central to an investigation (that involves a shooting death), and is expected to “stick around”? To turn in his Passport, even though there is no warrant or arrest yet?
The problem with this analysis is that civilians have no good reason to be kneeling on other civilians’ backs.
In other words, civilians would be treated differently because it’s much easier to reach an unambiguous conclusion about probably criminal activity. But we pay police to get involved in situations like this. If a civilian said he was trying to stop the fight, and that’s how the man got shot, the first question from the prosecutor at trial would be, “Why didn’t you call the police?”
The only thing that might bear on a later prosecution would be what I discussed above relating to Garrity v. New Jersey. You can’t interrogate a police officer like you can a criminal, because he’s worried about his job as well as his freedom. You arrest a civilian, read him his rights, get him to waive them, and start asking hard questions. His answers are admissible.
You put a police officer in the same situation, and his answers are NOT admissible, since he might have been feeling compelled to answer because of his fear of losing his job. So building a criminal case against an officer is not quite as easy a prospect, and depends much less on confessions elicited via interrogation… which is really a primary purpose of the quick arrest, the other being the fear that the suspect (if not arrested quickly) will flee the area.
You have a video record of what happened plus any number of citizens willing to provide their first hand account to corroborate the video, why does it take 13 days to file charges?
There’s no need for personal attacks.
To my knowledge there wasn’t video in the Duke case do you have a link?
So, anyone that questions and is skeptical is taking things personally? .
Plenty people would raise an eyebrow to the notion that it takes 13 days to decide to charge and arrest someone for shooting another person especially when they know exactly who that person is and where they are. This event I think is out of the norm in that respect I don’t understand why you don’t get that.
I don’t disagree about any point of your post, but I was referring to an arrest, not an interrogation. I wouldn’t necessarily expect a cop on the scene to start taking statements, but I would expect one to understand that there is – probable cause, is that the right term? – to make an arrest.
…The first duty of the police is probably going to be to maintain order as far as the crime scene (evidence preservation) and the potentially hostile crowd is concerned. In other words, call in the supervisor(s) and IA, and let them figure out what to do.
If the police were perceived to be fighting/arresting each other like a pack of piranna, I think it might raise some safety concerns…QUOTE]
Supervisors and IA are also cops. SOME cop should have made an arrest.
If the police had arrested the guy, the crowds would have applauded. If he had resisted, and the other cops beat the crap out of him, they would have thrown money.